Calcutta High Court Rishi Chemical Works Private Limited vs Enviro Cleanroom Projects Private ... on 15 December, 2025 ORDER OCD5 COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE APCOM/828/2025 RISHI CHEMICAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS ENVIRO CLEANROOM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date: December 15, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Moumita Dhar, Adv. ...for petitioner. Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Steven S. Biswas, Adv. ...for respondent. The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking immediate appointment of a receiver for carrying out the task specified in prayer (a) of the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products of diverse specifications and operates an existing manufacturing unit at Haridwar. With a view to establishing a clean room laboratory and an allied production facility at the said unit, the petitioner intended to engage a contractor for execution of the said works and, in that context, approached the respondent. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a price quotation and final price agreement dated 17.07.2023, pursuant to which the respondent was required to supply goods and render services strictly in accordance with the terms of the accepted quotation. It was agreed that upon completion of the work, joint measurements would be undertaken to determine the exact quantity of goods supplied and services rendered, on the basis of which the final amount payable would be ascertained. It is further submitted that there has been considerable delay on the part of the respondent in execution of the work. An aggregate amount of Rs. 1,01,76,808/ was paid by the petitioner to the respondent between 16.05.2023 and 23.10.2024 towards the setting up of the laboratory. Although possession of the laboratory was handed over to the petitioner on 07.05.2025, the work remained incomplete, resulting in substantial losses to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the handover expressly reserving its right to inspect the facility and to communicate any deficiencies observed to the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has received a notice from the MSME Arbitration Council and that the proceedings are presently at the stage of conciliation, with no arbitrator having been appointed thus far. It is contended that the present application is maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that unless a receiver is appointed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Prima Developers versus Lords Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.[(FAO(OS) 164/2009)] 2009 (110) DRJ 293 (DB),wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is intended to protect the subjectmatter of arbitration and to prevent irreparable injury to a party pending adjudication of disputes. It was further held that interim measures, including appointment of a receiver, can be granted even prior to commencement of arbitral proceedings, provided the Court is satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and that denial of interim protection would result in irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the respondent states that since the conciliation proceedings are already pending before the MSME Council, the present application is not maintainable. He further states that for the purposes of collecting evidence, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of an application under