Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Vineeta Teresa Job Thomas — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Vineeta Teresa Job Thomas — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the ad-interim reliefs stand vacated and the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty to move under Section 11 if still permissible in law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad-interim reliefs granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 01/10/2024 ought to be vacated and the Section 9 petitions disposed of on account of the petitioner's failure to file an application under Section 11 of the Act (i.e., to commence arbitral proceedings) within the ninety-day period contemplated by Section 9(2), despite a last-chance order dated 22/09/2025.

Court's answer

Since the interim order under Section 9 was granted on 1/10/2024, it was imperative for the petitioner to file an application under Section 11 of the Act; having failed to do so, the interim relief deserves to be vacated and even the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act deserves disposal.

Key takeaways

If it is still permissible in law for the petitioner to file an application under Section 11 for referring the dispute to arbitration, the petitioner is at liberty to do so.obiter¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 interim measures — Section 9(2) ninety-day commencement requirement — failure to file Section 11 application. Four Arbitration Petitions (No. 289 of 2024, with Nos. 285 of 2024, 183 of 2025 and 284 of 2024) filed by Aditya Birla Finance Limited against Vivek Krishna, Madansinh Gunwantsinh Punvar, R. Pandiammal and Vineeta Teresa Job Thomas (High Court of Bombay, Bharati Dangre, J., 13 November 2025). Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) had been granted on 1/10/2024 on an undisputed default under the Loan Agreement; by order dated 22/09/2025 the petitioner was given a last chance till October 14, 2025 to file a Section 11 application, which was not done. Held: where a Court passes an interim order under Section 9(1) before commencement of arbitral proceedings, Section 9(2) mandates commencement of the arbitral proceedings within ninety days; failure to file the Section 11 application rendered the interim relief liable to be vacated and the Section 9 petitions liable to be disposed of. Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a Section 11 application if still permissible in law.

Digitally signed ASHISHSAHEBRAOMHASKE by ASHISHSAHEBRAOMHASKEDate: 2025.11.15 18:51:40 +0530

1/3 45 ARBP 289-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 289 OF 2024

.. Petitioner Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Versus

Vivek Krishna .. Respondent

WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 285 OF 2024

.. Petitioner Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Madansinh Gunwantsinh Punvar .. Respondent

WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.183 OF 2025

.. Petitioner Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus R. Pandiammal .. Respondent

WITH

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.284 OF 2024

.. Petitioner Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Vineeta Teresa Job Thomas .. Respondent ... Adv. Jenny Somaiya i/b Tikshta Modi for the Petitioner.

Ashish

2/3 45 ARBP 289-24.doc

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13^th NOVEMBER 2025

P.C:-

The four Arbitration Petitions listed at item no.45, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“the Act”), resulted in passing of interim orders in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b), as a case for grant of ad-interim relief was made out and it was noted that the respondent is in breach of the obligation under the Loan Agreement. The petitioner was therefore found justified in invoking arbitration and seeking interim relief in view of the default, which was not disputed.

The interim relief having been granted on 1/10/2024, when the petitions were listed before this Court on 22/09/2025, the following order was passed:-

“1. This is a Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ the Act ”).

2. Despite interlocutory relief having been obtained under Section 9 of the Act, till date there is no sign of an application under Section 11 of the Act. Purely as a last chance, stand over to October 14, 2025 to examine if a Section 11 Application has been filed by that date, failing which the Petition would be liable to be disposed of.

3. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that, till date, the application under Section 11 of the Act for

Ashish

3/3 45 ARBP 289-24.doc

seeking appointment of the Arbitrator is not filed, though it is stated that the petitioner is in the process of filing the said application.

Section 9 of the Act of 1996, is a provision for grant of interim measures, before or during the arbitral proceedings, or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, in accordance with Section 36. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 makes it evidently clear that where, before commencement of arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order of any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine.

The interim order being granted on 1/10/2024, it was imperative for the petitioner to file an application under Section 11 of the Act, but having failed to do so, the interim relief deserves to be vacated, and even the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, deserve disposal.

Needless to state, if it is still permissible in law for the petitioner to file an application under Section 11, for referring the dispute to arbitration, and the petitioner is at liberty to do so. 5. In light of the above, the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Ashish