Tradearch Market Platform Pvt. Ltd. vs Indo Baltic Pte Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

Tradearch Market Platform Pvt. Ltd. vs Indo Baltic Pte Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether interim measures — specifically disclosure by the Respondents — ought to be granted in the Petitioner's Section 9 petition while arbitration proceedings initiated by the Petitioner are pending.

Court's answer

At this stage the Court sees no exigency to consider the request for grant of interim measures in the Section 9 Petition pending arbitration proceedings; in the Judge's considered opinion there is no emergent and pressing situation warranting grant of the reliefs as prayed for.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner's conduct weighed against interim relief: although the goods were to be delivered in November, 2022 and were not received, the Petitioner maintained stoic silence until it filed the Arbitration Petition in 2024 and thereafter the Section 11 Petition.

Key takeaways

Upon appointment of an Arbitrator, the reliefs can be sought before the Arbitral Tribunal.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division), Bharati Dangre J., disposed of a Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petition by Tradearch Market Platform against Indo Baltic Pte Ltd. & Ors. without granting interim relief. Pursuant to a Profit Sharing Agreement dated 29/08/2022 for business in agricultural commodities (including import/export from Benin to India), the Petitioner placed a Purchase Order dated 28/10/2022 for 264 MTS of black eye beans through a shipping agency engaged by the Respondents and remitted 2,04,600 USD (Rs.1,66,60,168) against three invoices raised by Respondent No.1, but never received the assured goods. The Respondents took the stand that the consignment was marked in favour of one KBS Impex and that they intended civil recovery proceedings against the exporter. The Petitioner had already invoked arbitration and sought appointment of an Arbitrator in proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which remain pending. Holding that, given non-delivery since November, 2022 and the Petitioner's silence until its 2024 Arbitration Petition and subsequent Section 11 Petition, there was no emergent and pressing situation warranting the reliefs prayed for, the Court observed that upon appointment of an Arbitrator the reliefs can be sought before the Arbitral Tribunal, and disposed of the Arbitration Petition.

905-carbp-476-2024.odt

rajshree

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 476 OF 2024

Tradearch Market Platform ....Petitioner V/S Indo Baltic Pte Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents

Ms.Hiral Thakkar a/w Anuj Jhaveri, Ritik Sinha i/b Anuj Dhaveri for the Petitioner.

Mr.Rahul Soman a/w Suyash More i/b Sakshi Mane for Rajeev Sawant Associates for Respondents.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 27^th NOVEMBER, 2025.

P.C.

1 The Profit Sharing Agreement dated 29/08/2022 is the cause of

disputes that have arisen between the Parties, in the wake of the Agreement for Conduct of Business in agricultural commodities in international market including import and export of the same from Benin to India and other potential markets. The Petitioner vide Purchase Order dated 28/10/2022 had placed an order of 264 MTS of black eye beans to be imported through a shipping agency engaged by Respondents.

1/3

905-carbp-476-2024.odt

It is the claim of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 raised three invoices and under the same an amount of 2,04,600/- USD i.e. Rs.1,66,60,168 has been remitted by the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner never received the assured goods and, therefore, by filing a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a disclosure has been sought by the Petitioner at the end of the Respondents as according to the Petitioner, the Respondents have violated the provisions in the Agreement and have failed to deliver the consignment and misappropriated the funds transferred for the same.

The Respondents have filed an Affidavit, categorically adopting a stand that the consignment itself is not received by the Respondents and rather the consignment was marked in favour of one KBS Impex and that the Respondents are in the process of filing appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of money and damages from the exporter.

In any case, the dispute has arisen between the Parties when the goods were not received in November, 2022 and the Petitioner is informed to have already invoked arbitration and has sought appointment of an Arbitrator by filings the proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are pending.

2/3

905-carbp-476-2024.odt

Since at this stage, I do not see any exigency to consider the request for grant of interim measure in Section 9 Petition pending arbitration proceedings and till its disposal, since the goods were supposed to be delivered in the month of November, 2022 and having not been received, the Petitioner has also maintained stoic silence until it filed Arbitration Petition in the year 2024 and even Section 11 Petition is filed thereafter. In my considered opinion, there is no emergent and pressing situation warranting grant of the reliefs as prayed for.

Upon appointment of an Arbitrator, the reliefs can be sought before the Arbitral Tribunal.

In the wake of aforesaid, Arbitration Petition stands disposed off.

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

3/3