Calcutta High Court Sai Surfactants Private Limited vs Amrit Cement Limited on 8 January, 2026 (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) 2026:CHCOS:2 ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 06.01.2026 DELIVERED ON: 08.01.2026 PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH APCOM 545 OF 2025 SAI SURFACTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS AMRIT CEMENT LIMITED Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uttam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Prakash, Adv. ..... for the petitioner Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Parasramka, Adv. Mr. Udipt Daga, Adv. ..... for the respondent JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J.: 1. The Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim protection, inter alia, by directing the Respondent to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 63,45,690/ so as to secure the monetary claim proposed to be pursued by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows: 3. The Petitioner is a registered MSME enterprise engaged in the manufacture and supply of polypropylene (PP) woven bags. The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cement. 4. Between May 2024 and June 2024, the Respondent placed purchase orders upon the Petitioner for laminated polypropylene bags, PP woven bags and Block Bottom Bags (PPC trade). Pursuant thereto, supplies 2 2026:CHCOS:2 aggregating to 10,08,000 cement bags were effected, having an aggregate invoice value of Rs.1,45,54,214.40/. The contractual terms provided for payment within 30 days from the date of the respective invoices. 5. Payments to the extent of Rs.88,78,288/ were made by the Respondent against the said supplies. The balance amount of Rs.56,06,854/ remains disputed. The record also reflects to a virtual meeting held on 18.09.2024 in connection with the issue of outstanding payments. 6. The Respondent issued a debit note dated 21.09.2024 for an amount of Rs.55,65,287/. Subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties, including emails dated 25.09.2024 and 12.10.2024, indicates that objections were raised by the Respondent with regard to the quality of the supplied bags. 7. Demand notices dated 19.12.2024 and 21.12.2024 were issued by the Petitioner. The Respondent replied thereto on 02.01.2025, reiterating its objections concerning the quality of the goods supplied. 8. On the basis of the materials placed on record, the Petitioner asserts that as on 20.03.2025 a sum of Rs.63,45,690/, inclusive of contractual interest at the rate of 18% per annum, remains outstanding. Invoking the arbitration clause providing for adjudication at Kolkata, the present application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures pending commencement and conclusion of arbitral proceedings. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner 9. Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the supplies were effected strictly in terms of the purchase orders and were 3 2026:CHCOS:2 duly delivered and utilised by the Respondent. Part payments aggregating to Rs.88,78,288/ were made, evidencing acceptance of the supplies. The balance amount remained unpaid beyond the stipulated credit period, notwithstanding discussions held on 18.09.2024 in relation to the outstanding dues. 10. It is submitted that the Respondent was governed by a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing the mechanism for sampling, inspection, acceptance and rejection of laminated polypropylene bags. The SOP prescribes detailed protocols including Bag Inspection (page Nos. 3536), Breaking Strength and Weld Strength (page No. 38), Acceptance Criteria (page No. 39), Assessment Procedures (page Nos. 3940), Elongation Test (page No. 40), Ash Content (page Nos. 4041), and rejection norms on the packing floor (page No. 45). It is the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent failed to ad