Metavisio Computing INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Sahasra Electronic Solutions LTD.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Metavisio Computing India Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the delivery of 1,505 Celeron Model laptops out of a total of 2,150 laptops ordered from the respondent, Sahasra Electronic Solutions Ltd. The parties had entered into a Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement dated 15.06.2023, amended by an Addendum dated 27.09.2023. Purchase orders were placed for 2,150 laptops valued at Rs. 3 Crores. The petitioner paid Rs. 2.1 Crores on 12.03.2025, intending to pay the balance upon receipt of material. However, the respondent refused to ship any goods without full payment, citing alleged defaults and outstanding amounts from both the Indian and a French parent entity. The dispute revolves around the delivery of these laptops.
Held
The Court held that a mandatory injunction can be granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the facts and circumstances warrant it to preserve the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings. The Court found that the laptops, being technology items, are subject to rapid technological advancement, and their value diminishes daily. Delaying delivery would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner's business. The Court noted that the purchase orders for 2,150 laptops appeared to be a distinct cause of action, and the petitioner had paid for 1,505 laptops. Therefore, the Court concluded that a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience favored the petitioner, and irreparable loss would occur if the relief was not granted. The Court directed the respondent to deliver the 1,505 laptops for which payment had been made. Additionally, without prejudice, the petitioner was willing to pay Rs. 21,65,560/- plus GST, subject to proof of GST, and the respondent was willing to provide 4,000 tablets simultaneously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court has the power to grant a mandatory injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the delivery of goods, particularly when the respondent argues that such relief amounts to specific performance and is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as compensation is quantifiable in money. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the 1,505 laptops for which full payment (or payment as agreed upon in subsequent emails) was made constitute a distinct cause of action and that non-delivery would cause irreparable harm due to the rapid pace of technological change and potential business losses. They argued that the court has wide powers to fashion appropriate interim orders, including mandatory interlocutory injunctions, to preserve the subject matter of arbitral proceedings. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that granting the relief sought would amount to specific performance at this stage, which is barred in law. They relied on judgments stating that interim measures under Section 9 are for safeguarding interests and ensuring proceedings are not rendered infructuous, not for directing specific performance. They also argued that compensation in terms of money is quantifiable, making a mandatory injunction inappropriate.
Sections Cited
Section 9, Section 41(h)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 31.07.2025
This is a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the respondents to deliver 1,505 Celeron Model laptops which constitute 70% of total 2,150 laptops.
The case of the parties is that the petitioner entered into Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement dated 15.06.2023 amended by Addendum dated 27.09.2023, wherein purchase orders were required to be placed on the respondent for manufacturing of laptops.
The petitioner placed purchase orders dated 15.03.2024 on the respondent for a total of 2,150 laptops of a total value of Rs. 3 Crores.
Relevant Clauses of the Agreement are Clause 2 and 6.3 which read as under:- “Clause 2. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT
1 Subject to the orders placed by Metavisio, Sahasra shall manufacture and deliver the product to Metavisio complying with the Specifications and Technical details approved by Metavisio, in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2 Sahasra shall get approved by Metavisio, in writing, the Specifications pertaining to each model of the Product separately, and shall manufacture the respective Product in strict compliance with such approved Specification and in accordance with the terms &conditions of this Agreement. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 6 ORDERING & FORECASTING 6.1 6.2
3 All the Purchase Order(s) accepted by Sahasra shall be subject to, governed by, and construed in accordance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In the event of any conflicting terms between this Agreement & Purchase Order, the following order of precedence shall be followed:- i) The terms on the Purchase Order; ii) The terms of this Agreement;”
The said Agreement also contains an arbitration clause being Clause No. 20 which reads as under :
“20. DISPUTE RESOLUTION a. The Parties shall amicably and in good faith endeavor to settle any dispute, claim or controversy arising between the Parties out of or in relation to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
this Agreement, during the subsistence or after the term of the Agreement. b. In case the Parties fail to settle such disputes amicably, either Party shall be entitled to refer the disputes to an Arbitrator, appointed and constituted by both the Parties mutually. c. The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in New Delhi, and the same shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modification as may be then in force. The Arbitration shall be conducted in English. The order passed by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties and all costs associated with such submission shall be shared equally between the Parties involved in the Dispute unless the Arbitrator decides otherwise.”
On 11.03.2025, the petitioner wrote an e-mail wherein it informed the respondent that a total amount of Rs. 3 crores are due and payable and the petitioner shall pay Rs. 2 crores now and rest of the amount on the next date of the material received by the petitioner. The respondent on 12.03.2025 duly responded to the said email by saying that the respondent will receive Rs. 2.1 crores and the remaining amount of Rs. 0.9 crores should be released immediately after the dispatch of material. Subsequently, the said amount of Rs. 2.1 crores was duly transferred on the same date, i.e. 12.03.2025. 7. However, subsequently on receipt of Rs. 2.1 crores, the respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
wrote another e-mail dated 13.03.2025, stating that the petitioner had committed defaults on its earlier obligations and the respondent will not ship anything without getting its full payment. Hence, the present petition is filed.
Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner company and the parent company of the petitioner i.e. Metavisio SA are one and the same entity and there are amounts of U 272,493.50 due and payable by the French Entity. Additionally, there are Rs. 21,65,560 also due from the Indian entity on account of Tablets which the Indian company had ordered and is not taking/receiving.
It is further stated by Mr. Kumar, learned counsel that there are e-mails on record which show that the French and the Indian entity are Pvt. Ltd., FAO (COMM) 63/2021 and more particularly on paragraph No. 14 which reads as under:- “14. This Court, in C.V. Rao Vs. Strategic Port Investments K.P.C. Ltd. 218 (2015) DLT 200 (DB) held that interim measures under Section 9 should be for the purposes of safeguarding the interest of the parties to the arbitration proceedings, to ensure that the arbitration proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It was further held that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
underlying object is to preserve the property which is the subject matter of dispute, till the Arbitral Tribunal decides the dispute and the scope of Section 9 cannot be extended to directing specific performance of the contract itself. Comparatively recently, in Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs. Aurora Properties and Investments MANU/SC/0884/2018, the Supreme Court, concerned with an order of interlocutory mandatory injunction of delivery of certain flats, made by the Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act, held that interim mandatory relief can be granted only to restore status quo and not to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date of commencement of the lis. The grant of interim mandatory relief, in the facts of that case was held to be a drastic order.”
He also relies on the judgment of Parsoli Motors Works Pvt. Ltd. vs BMW India Pvt. Ltd., O.M.P (I) (COMM) 559/2017 and more particularly on paragraph No. 33 which reads as under:- “33. The position that emerges from the above authorities is, therefore, that power to grant injunctive relief, under section 9 of the 1996 Act, has to abide by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Injunction which cannot be granted under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, cannot be granted under section 9 of the 1996 Act, either. Neither can relief be granted, under section 9, as would amount to specific enforcement of a contract which, by nature, is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
determinable, in view of section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The power to grant injunctive relief, under section 9 of the 1996 Act, is essentially intended to protect the subject matter of the contract, and to avoid frustration of arbitral proceedings which may be initiated with respect thereto. Such relief can be granted only if the three pre-requisites, governing grant of injunctive relief, i.e. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience being in favour of the claimant and possibility of irreparable loss that would ensue to the claimant were such relief not granted, stand fully satisfied. Even in cases where a contract is being sought to be terminated, in violation of the terms thereof, if it appears that the party who suffers as a result of such termination could be adequately compensated in terms of money at the stage of final adjudication of the dispute, no injunctive relief, under section 9 of the 1996 Act, would be granted.”
He further relies on Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to urge that the compensation in the present case is quantifiable in terms of money.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
Recently, in NHAI v. H.K. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd., 2025 : DHC : 2679, I have observed as under:- “64. Mr. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the respondent has argued that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to grant interim mandatory injunction to preserve the subject matter This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
of the arbitral proceedings, if need so arises as in the present case was. Reliance is placed on NTPC Limited (supra) and the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:- “19. It was observed later, in the same judgment that: “The question of substance is whether the granting of the injunction would carry that higher risk of injustice which is normally associated with the grant of a mandatory injunction. The second point is that in cases in which there can be no dispute about the use of the term “mandatory” to describe the injunction, the same question of substance will determine whether the case is “normal” and therefore within the guideline or “exceptional” and therefore requiring special treatment. If it appears to the court that, exceptionally, the case is one in which withholding a mandatory interlocutory injunction would in fact carry a greater risk of injustice than granting it even though the court does not feel a “high degree of assurance” about the plaintiff's chances of establishing his right, there cannot be any rational basis for withholding the injunction.”
Hence, in view of the above judgments, it is clear that the court has wide powers to fashion appropriate interim order including mandatory interlocutory injunction. Such powers could also be exercised under Section 17(1)(e) of the Act by the arbitrator. As noted This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
above, exercise of power for grant of interim orders is a fact dependent exercise.”
I am in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment as the powers of the AT to grant interim measures are pari materia with the powers of Court and also, sub clause (e) of section 17(1)(ii) gives power to AT to grant interim protection as may appear to be just and convenient. However, the said discretion cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The same has to be exercised in view of the facts of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties & Investments, (2018) 17 SCC 203 has already observed that an interim mandatory injunction is not to be easily granted…..
The interim mandatory injunction is an extraordinary relief and the same should not be granted unless there are clear and compelling reasons for it.”
On perusal of the judgements cited above, it is clear that mandatory injunction can be granted by Court in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant to preserve the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings.
In the present case, admittedly, the products in question are laptops which are a technology item and the technology changes at a rapid pace. The value of the laptops which exists as today is bound to diminish in monetary terms with every passing day due to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
advancement of technology. In fact, delaying their delivery would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner’s business (likely resale or further commitments). Keeping the laptops with the respondent would not be enuring to anyone’s benefit.
Additionally, the purchase orders for 2,150 laptops, prima facie, are a distinct cause of action. Out of 2150 laptops, the petitioner had already paid for 1,505 laptops entirely. This shows the fulfillment of the obligation by the petitioner.
For the said reasons, I am of the view that prima facie, the petitioner has paid the money and the respondent has refused to deliver the laptops, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner as the amounts for the goods have been paid to the respondent and if the laptops are not delivered to the petitioner, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss due to rapid change in technology and business losses.
In this view of the matter, it is directed that the 1,505 laptops be delivered to the petitioner for which the payment has already been made to the respondent. Further, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the petitioner is also ready and willing to pay Rs. 21,65,560/- plus GST, subject to the respondent giving proof of GST and the respondent is ready and willing to give 4,000 tablets simultaneously to the petitioner.
The petition is allowed in the above terms thereof. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 31, 2025/sp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:29:40
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.