CASE NAME: Tata Capital Limited v. Jain Globals & Ors.
CITATION: CNR No: HCBM020087282026
CASE NUMBER: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8727 OF 2026
COURT: High Court of Bombay.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28th July, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Borkar
FACTS
The Petitioner (Tata Capital Limited) has extended financial assistance to the Respondents in respect of purchase of Construction Equipment. 8th November, 2024, the Parties entered into Loan cum Hypothecation Agreements by which the Respondents granted the Petitioner a first and exclusive charge over the Equipment. The Respondents were in default of the agreements in that they did not make timely payment of the monthly instalment payments and paid only half of the amounts.
4th February, 2026 the Petitioner issued demand notices for foreclosure of the entire loan facility and claimed Rs. as foreclosure amount. 87,02,201 (as on 2nd January 2026) and invoking the arbitration clause. In the present petition, Petitioner sought interim reliefs such as providing the disclosure of assets, attachment of bank accounts and appointment of a Receiver for the hypothecated Equipment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
ISSUES
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for securing the disputed amount and preserving the hypothecated assets.
- Whether the court should order attachment of the bank accounts of the Respondents without the need for an actual monetary claim and require them to provide bank guarantee for the same.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Laws Referred:
- Essar House (P) Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd., (2022) 20 SCC 178.
- Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. v. Efftech Infra Engineers, (2024) Supreme (Guj) 63.
- ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Nidhi Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12265.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
The Petitioner contended that the Loan Agreements give it the right to terminate the facility, enforce a demand for repayment of the outstanding amount, and to take possession of the hypothecated assets without the need for court intervention under Clause 18 of the Loan Agreements. It was argued that the Respondents may seek to hide or sell the assets to thwart the enforcement of the arbitral award, thus requiring an order for the Respondents to disclose their assets, attach their bank accounts and appoint a Receiver.
RESPONDENT
The Respondents were properly served but did not appear at the proceedings. Therefore, the Respondents did not make any submission opposing the petition and explaining the location of the hypothecated Equipment.
ANALYSIS
The Court noted that the discretionary equitable powers under Section 9 for the passing of interim orders are to be based on actual necessity and not just to obtain a money decree en masse. The Court has denied prayers seeking attaching of the respondents’ bank accounts and demanding bank guarantee because Petitioner had not shown any material that the respondents are looting the money to thwart the claim, and co-ordinating with the same would be amounting to taking double security.
The Court agreed that disclosure of the Equipment’s location and deployment contracts was warranted because heavy construction equipment tends to lose value over time and needs to be traced to maintain the value of the security.
The Court relied on precedent in movable assets to conclude that it was necessary and proportionate to appoint a Court Receiver for the Equipment to enable it to be traced, to prevent its deterioration during the arbitration.
JUDGEMENT
A portion of the Arbitration Petitions were accepted. The Respondents were ordered within two weeks to produce an affinitive stating the current address and contracts of deployment of the Construction Equipment. The Respondents were prevented from selling, transference and creation of any third-party rights to the Construction Equipment until the arbitration proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed to take symbolic and physical possession of the Equipment with the aid of police–if they should be required–but he was expressly barred from selling or auctioning the Equipment without further directions from the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court. Requests for bank accounts to be attached, furnishing of further security, disclosure of all cash flows and omnibus directions to national transport authorities were denied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SHEEN
Read the Judgement copy below:
Tata Capital Limited v. Jain Globals & Ors. (Lead Matter) along with connected petitions
