She had a $375,000 claim. Her case was tossed for filing under the wrong rule.

A Korean Company, a $375,000 Advance, and a Case Dismissed on a Technicality

When Ilwonhibrand Co. Ltd., a Korean company, entered into sale contracts with Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of Full-Fat Soya Grits, it likely expected a straightforward commercial transaction. Instead, it got substandard goods, a raid on its premises, and a breach of contract that left it chasing $375,000 in advance payments. After Mahakali supplied only $142,500 worth of goods and repeatedly promised but never paid compensation, Ilwonhibrand turned to the courts. But when it finally reached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, its petition was dismissed — not on the merits, but because it had filed the wrong kind of case.

The stakes were clear: Ilwonhibrand had lost its interim protection application before the Commercial Court, Indore, which dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, holding that the dispute involved international commercial arbitration, not domestic arbitration. The company then approached the High Court, seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 2(1)(f) and Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. But the High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, found a fatal procedural flaw: the petition was registered as an "Arbitration Case" under Rule 3 of Chapter II of the MP High Court Rules, 2008 — a category reserved exclusively for applications under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrators.

The Wrong Box

The High Court's judgment, delivered on April 3, 2024, in Arbitration Case No. 18 of 2023, turned on a single, crisp question: what kind of case is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act when filed before the High Court? The answer, the Bench held, is not an Arbitration Case.

Rule 3 of Chapter II of the MP High Court Rules, 2008, the Court observed, is specific in its scope. It governs only applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — the provision that deals with appointment of arbitrators. An application under Section 9, which seeks interim measures like injunctions or asset preservation, is a different creature altogether. It is not an application to appoint an arbitrator; it is an application for interim relief pending arbitration.

The Court noted that the petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 2525/2023 seeking reclassification of the petition. That application was rejected. The Bench was clear: the category of "Arbitration Case" under the Rules of 2008 is a narrow, specific category. It cannot be stretched to accommodate a Section 9 application.

Where Does a Section 9 Application Belong?

Having ruled out the Arbitration Case category, the Court turned to the proper classification. Sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the Rules of 2008 provides for a "Miscellaneous Civil Case" — defined as "any other application of civil nature, not falling under any of the specified categories, which is not interlocutory to any proceedings."

The Bench held that a Section 9 application seeking interim protection in an international commercial arbitration, when filed before the High Court, falls squarely within this residual category. It is an application of civil nature, it does not fall under any of the specified categories (like Arbitration Case), and it is not interlocutory to any pending proceedings before the High Court. The proper classification, therefore, is a Miscellaneous Civil Case.

The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a miscellaneous civil case in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the Rules of 2008.

THE PLAY: When filing a Section 9 application for interim measures before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, do not file it as an Arbitration Case. File it as a Miscellaneous Civil Case under sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the MP High Court Rules, 2008.

The Jurisdictional Question Left Open

The petitioner had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.D. Containers v. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3695/2020) to argue that the High Court could exercise original civil jurisdiction over Section 9 applications in international commercial arbitration under Clause 9 of the Letter Patent read with Rule 1(8) of Chapter IV of the Rules. The Court noted this argument but did not rule on it. The substantive question of whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 applications in international commercial arbitration remains open — to be determined when a properly classified petition is filed.

This is significant. The Commercial Court had dismissed Ilwonhibrand's Section 9 application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved international commercial arbitration. The High Court, in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds, did not address whether it itself had jurisdiction. The obiter dicta in the judgment leaves this question for another day.

What This Means for Practitioners

For advocates practicing before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this judgment is a procedural trap that is now clearly marked. The lesson is simple: know your Rules of 2008. An Arbitration Case is for Section 11 applications only. A Section 9 application — whether in domestic or international commercial arbitration — must be filed as a Miscellaneous Civil Case.

For CFOs and founders, the takeaway is equally practical. When your company is locked in a cross-border commercial dispute and needs urgent interim relief — like freezing assets or preventing the other party from dissipating funds — the procedural route matters as much as the substantive law. A wrong filing can cost weeks or months, as Ilwonhibrand discovered. The company now has to refile its petition, and the clock on interim relief starts again.

The judgment also underscores a broader point about the architecture of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9 is a powerful tool — it allows a party to seek interim measures from a court even before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. But the "court" for the purposes of Section 9 is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. In international commercial arbitration, the definition of "court" can be complex, and the jurisdictional question that the High Court left open may yet prove decisive.

The Bottom Line

If you are filing a Section 9 application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, file it as a Miscellaneous Civil Case under sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the MP High Court Rules, 2008 — not as an Arbitration Case. Get the classification right, or risk dismissal and delay.