ELIXIRAY CONSULTING PRIVATE LTDversusNEBLIO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

                                                                                  45-carbp-168-2026-F.doc


                              Sayali


                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           Digitally signed
SAYALI  by SAYALI
        DEEPAK                                  IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
DEEPAK UPASANI
UPASANI Date:
        2026.09.24
           16:29:08 +0530

                                       COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 168 OF 2026

                              Elixiray Consulting Private Ltd             … Petitioner
                                          V/s.
                              Neblio Technologies Private Limited         … Respondent

                              Mr. Dushaynt Yadav i/b Pooja Dongre, for Petitioner.
                              Mr. Rohaan Cama with Ms. Riya Narichania, Mr.
                              Shreyas Lavekar, Ms. Alisha D souza, mr. Abhinav Naik
                              Naware i/b Indus Law, for Respondent.


                                                         CORAM       : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                         DATED       : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
                              P.C.:

                              1.          The Petitioner’s claim for interim relief under Section 9
                              of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is founded principally
                              upon an alleged admission said to have been made by the
                              Respondent in the proceedings before the National Company Law
                              Tribunal. According to the Petitioner, in the reply filed before the
                              NCLT, the Respondent had categorically admitted its liability to the
                              extent of Rs. 37,38,150/-. On the basis of such alleged admission,
                              the Petitioner seeks to contend that the amount is admitted and
                              undisputed and, therefore, warrants protection by way of interim
                              measures under Section 9 of the Act.

                              2.          The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent,
                              however, has invited my attention to the judgment subsequently



                                                               1
                                                    45-carbp-168-2026-F.doc


delivered by the NCLT on merits, after the Petitioner was afforded
an opportunity of placing its case before the Tribunal. The said
judgment assumes considerable significance since the alleged
admission relied upon by the Petitioner cannot be examined in
isolation from the findings ultimately recorded by the NCLT upon
consideration of the dispute between the parties. In paragraph 4.6
of its judgment, the NCLT has recorded a categorical finding that
there existed a real and genuine pre-existing dispute between the
parties in relation to the Operational Creditor’s claim concerning
fraudulent data. The NCLT has further found that such dispute was
supported by concrete and credible evidence. In paragraph 4.10,
the NCLT has recorded a further categorical finding that the
Operational Creditor had failed to establish the existence of a
crystallized and undisputed operational debt exceeding the
prescribed threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016. These findings cannot be disregarded
while considering the nature of the claim now sought to be
protected under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

3.          It is significant that although the judgment of the NCLT
was delivered on 23 January 2024, the same was not disclosed or
placed before this Court by the Petitioner. The existence of the said
judgment came to be brought to the notice of this Court only when
the Respondent placed a copy thereof on record. It is thereafter
that the Petitioner has accepted the existence of the said judgment.
The omission assumes significance because the judgment contains
findings directly bearing upon the very foundation on which the
present Section 9 Petition is founded. A party seeking discretionary



                                  2
                                                      45-carbp-168-2026-F.doc


interim relief is expected to place before the Court the complete
factual position and cannot rely upon a particular statement or
proceeding while withholding the subsequent adjudication which
materially qualifies or affects the effect of such statement.

4.          The jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act is discretionary in nature. The Court, while
exercising such jurisdiction, is required to consider the entire
factual position placed before it and the conduct of the parties. A
party seeking equitable and discretionary interim protection is
under an obligation to make a full and fair disclosure of all
material facts. This obligation extends not merely to facts which
support the claim for interim relief, but equally to facts which may
operate against the grant of such relief. A material adjudication
having a direct bearing upon the alleged admission and upon the
existence of the underlying debt is plainly a fact which ought to
have been disclosed to the Court.

5.          In the present case, the foundation of the Petitioner’s
claim is the alleged admission of Rs. 37,38,150/- made before the
NCLT. That alleged admission, however, cannot be treated as
determinative of the Petitioner’s entitlement when the subsequent
judgment of the NCLT, rendered after hearing the parties, records a
specific finding that a real and genuine pre-existing dispute existed
and that the dispute concerning the alleged fraudulent data was
supported by concrete and credible evidence. The NCLT has
further held that the Operational Creditor failed to establish a
crystallized and undisputed operational debt satisfying the
statutory threshold. Therefore, the alleged admission, when



                                  3
                                                      45-carbp-168-2026-F.doc


considered in the context of the complete proceedings before the
NCLT, does not establish an admitted and undisputed liability so as
to justify the grant of interim protection under Section 9.

6.          The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9
cannot proceed on a selective consideration of the material placed
before it. The Court must examine whether the circumstances
relied upon by the Petitioner disclose a sufficient basis for the
extraordinary interim protection sought. In the present case, the
very claim upon which the Petitioner seeks protection is subject to
a serious dispute, and the existence of that dispute has already
been noticed and recorded by the NCLT upon consideration of the
material before it. The findings recorded by the NCLT materially
weaken the Petitioner’s contention that the amount of Rs.
37,38,150/- constitutes an admitted and undisputed liability. In
such circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to establish the
requisite basis for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under
Section 9 of the Act.

7.          For the aforesaid reasons, and having regard to the
findings recorded by the NCLT, the alleged admission relied upon
by the Petitioner cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient basis for
granting interim relief. The Petition, therefore, fails and is liable to
be dismissed.

8.          Hence, the Petition is dismissed.




                                                (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                   4