OA/467/2026 of G Dharamchand Kochar Vs P R Kumar on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

O.A.No.467 of 2026 has been filed to pass an order of interim injunction respondents his men, agents, servants or any other person or persons, claiming through him, from in any manner alienating or encumbering or dealing with the properties more fully described in the schedule “A” to “D” appended to the Judges Summons by way of sale, mortgage, lease or joint development or in any other form of conveyance detrimental to the interest of the applicant pending consideration of the application seeking security preferring an Arbitral Claim before the Arbitration Tribunal.

2. Arb.A.No.1028 of 2026 has been filed to direct the respondents to furnish security to the extent of Rs.151,61,44,565/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty One Crore Sixty One Lakhs Forty Fourt Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with interest at 18% p.a by securing the amount in dispute on a date to be fixed pending preferring an Arbitral claim before the Arbitral Tribunal failing which pass an order of attachment before judgment of the properties more fully described in the schedule appended to the pending preferring an

arbitral claim by the applicant as against the respondent.

3. A.Nos.2489 & 2491 of 2026 Application filed to vacate the ad-interim order passed by this Court dated 13.05.2026 in O.A.No.467 of 2026.

4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties in the respective applications.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the first respondent who is also a Director in the second defendant in view of the common business that had been carried out by them, developed good relationship and in that regard the applicant had deposed complete trust and confidence in the first respondent. At the behest of the first respondent apart from supply of materials by the applicant, he had also procured textiles and sarees from other wholesalers on the strength of his standing and reputation with such wholesalers, to the respondent. It was the understanding between the applicant and the respondent that for such procurement, the respondent would make the payments and such payments were also been made promptly initially. But, however as the respondent envisaged its interest to diversify his business had indicated that there may be a slight delay in the repayments to be made to him, as also to the third party wholesale suppliers which in view of the relationship between the parties, had also been accepted and the applicant had

been servicing the procurement of the goods on credit basis. In that regard, the applicant had also borrowed monies from other financiers, friends and family not to fund the respondents, for which the respondents had also handed over the original title deeds of the properties which were purchased predominantly from the monies advanced by the applicant. In that regard, he had also relied upon the hand written calculation sent by the respondent on 04.04.2010. He had also relied upon the promissory note issued by the first respondent dated 20.08.2024 to contend that the first respondent had also agreed for the resolution of the dispute among themselves through a process of arbitration by a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the applicant. He would submit that as the disputes arose, the applicant had also triggered the arbitration proceedings by issuance of Section 21 notice as early as on 31.03.2026. In that regard, he would submit that the applicant is entitled for an injunction as against the respondent not to alienate the property or at least a direction to furnish security failing which the property belonging to the respondent as described under the schedule be attached.

6. In that regard, he had also relied upon the judgement dated 03.11.2022 made by this court in A.No.3364 of 2022.

7. Countering his arguments, Mr.Om Prakash learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the respondent and the applicant had in course of the business entered into certain financial

transactions as early as in the year 2010. he would submit that the applicant had initiated proceedings before the NCLT, Chennai as against the respondents. Even though, claims were disputed for a complete quietus to the disputes that arose between the parties and to sever the financial and legal connections between the parties a Memorandum of Compromise and declaration was entered into between the parties. Under the same, the first respondent had paid a sum of Rs.9,83,18,903/- as full and final settlement of all claims and disputes that had been raised by the applicant. The NCLT by its order dated 02.08.20223 recording the same had closed the lis raised by the applicant. The applicant had failed to return the original title deeds and documents that had been entrusted by the first respondent as a security. But however, to the shock and surprise of the respondents, the applicant on the strength of a promissory note dated 20.08.2024 is attempting to resurrect the disputes between the parties. He would submit that the alleged promissory note was never ever executed by the first respondent and the same is forged and fabricated for the purpose of creating a fresh cause of action and to harass the first respondent. He would submit that the applicant had come with unclean hands as he had suppressed the proceedings which are initiated by him before the NCLT which had been disposed of based upon a Memorandum of Compromise that had been entered between the parties as early as in the year 2023.

8. In reply, Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no necessity to deal with the NCLT proceedings which arose out of a different transaction and that the promissory note upon which the present arbitral proceedings initiated had been issued subsequently. The attempt made by the respondent to rely upon the proceedings which do not have any connection with the present promissory note in which a clause for arbitration had been appended which is alleged to be forged could also be gone into by the Arbitrator. Hence, he would pray this Court to grant relief as claimed for by the applicant.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

10. There is no dispute between the parties that they had been engaged in commercial transactions among themselves. But, however it is the claim of the respondent that the applicant had earlier initiated proceedings before the NCLT, wherein the disputes between the parties had been fully and finally settled. On the contrary, it is the case of the applicant that the NCLT proceedings related to a transaction which is not the transaction based upon which the present application had been taken out and the arbitral proceedings is sought to be initiated. The respondent had also disputed the execution of the said promissory

note as to be forged and fabricated.

11. That apart, it is the case of the respondent that none of the properties belonging to the first respondent against whom the claim is made but is in the name of the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have been made a party and the properties belonging to the first respondent could not be the subject matter of the litigation between the parties. The proceedings before the NCLT had been admitted to by the parties however that the contention of the applicant is that the same relating to the different transaction. Neither applicant nor the respondent had placed on record neither the order of the NCLT nor the Memorandum of Compromise/ Understanding that had been said to have been entered between the parties for this Court to appreciate the claims made by the respective parties.

12. It is further to be noted that the Court dealing with Section 9 application can only prima facie be satisfied for grant of interim measures and cannot conduct a mini trial on the disputes between the parties as the same would only be an issue before the Arbitrator.

13. There is an admitted relationship between the parties namely the applicant and the first respondent. The claim of the first respondent that it had discharged its dues to the applicant could also be only arrived at by the

Arbitrator. Even though, the applicant claims that the lis between the parties had been settled in view of the Memorandum of Compromise that had been entered in the year 2022, no reasons have been assigned as to why on the full and final settlement that had been arrived at between the parties on 2023, the documents admitted to have been handed over to the applicant had not been taken on that day. This Court is unable to appreciate the claim of the first respondent that it was the applicant who had failed to handover the said documents.

14. Admittedly, the disputed promissory note upon which the present applications had been filed had only been executed by the first respondent. The second respondent is not a signatory to the said promissory note and in the present proceedings, this Court is also not inclined to pierce the veil. The properties appended to the schedule to the injunction application as well as the application to furnish security are one and the same properties which is admitted to be standing in the name of the second respondent. In that regard, this Court is of the view that an injunction restraining, alienation or attachment or failure to furnish security of a property belonging to a third party vis the second respondent could not be granted. But, however this Court is of the view that to protect the interest of the applicant of the claim under the disputed Promissory note could be made by directing the first respondent to provide a bank guarantee for the value Rs.151,61,44,565/-would be suffice.

15. Accordingly, the order dated 13.05.2026 stands vacated and the applications are disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. Rs.151,61,44,565/- within a period of 12 weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if necessary steps are not initiated by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator within the period eight(8) weeks the present order shall stand suspended. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 28.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA OA No. 467 of 2026 and Arb.A.No.1028 of 2026 and A.Nos.2489 & 2491 of 2026 28.09.2026

O.A.No.467 of 2026 and Arb.A.No.1028 of 2026 and A.Nos.2489 and 2491 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. This matter has been listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned', at the instance of the learned counsel for the applicant by circulation of a letter dated 08.10.2026 where-under he had indicated that the matter is sought to be listed under the caption 'for being mentioned', as the default clause stipulating the consequences of attachment in the event of non-compliance within the specified period had been inadvertently omitted in the operative portion of the order.

2. In paragraph 14 of the order of this Court dated 28.09.2026, this Court had categorically concluded that the Court was of the view that the injunction restraining, alienation or attachment on failure to furnish security of a property belonging to a third party viz., the second respondent could not be granted.

3. Only in that regard, the consequence of failure to furnish bank guarantee had not been incorporated in the said order. Hence, this Court is of the view that no further clarification is required to be made in the order dated 28.09.2026.

16.10.2026

abr

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.83 of 2026 and Arb.A.Nos.1444 and 1445 of 2025 16.10.2026