Madhya Pradesh High Court
Terratec Limited Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 WP-40971-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 40971 of 2025
(TERRATEC LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. HAMISH SUTHERLAND Vs THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 20-02-2026
Shri Ajay Bagadia Senior Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Kumar, Ashish Suman
advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Vinay Gandhi advocate for respondent No.2.
Heard on IA No. 1502/2026, an application on behalf of the petitioner for directions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the ground mentioned in the application submits that this Court vide order dated 7.1.2026 has permitted the Expert appointed by the Arbitration Tribunal to inform the Investigation Officer about proposed visit to inspect the machinery and the Investigation Officer was expected to facilitate inspection of subject matter machinery in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Expert appointed by the Arbitration Tribunal submitted an application with the Investigation Officer of the Police Station Station Road, Ratlam to facilitate inspection of machinery. Initially, the Investigation Officer did not respond to the e-mails of the Expert. After filing of this interlocutory application, the Investigation Officer declined permission to inspect the subject matter machinery. Therefore, the concerned Police Authority be directed to cooperate with the Tribunal appointed Expert and facilitate inspection of subject equipment at Laxyo Yard, Ratlam in terms of Order no. 5 dated 16th December 2025 of the Arbitration Tribunal without any interference or obstruction.
Learned counsel further submits that the subject matter machinery was Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 20-02-2026 19:04:20 2 WP-40971-2025 shifted to Laxyo Yard Ratlam to facilitate seizure by local Police Authority. The SHO of P.S. Station Road, Ratlam is working hand in glove with the respondent No. 2 to avoid inspection of the subject matter machinery in furtherance of the directions of the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, appropriate direction be issued by this Court to facilitate inspection of the subject matter machinery.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State at the written instructions of the SHO, P.S. Station Road, Ratlam dated 19.2.2026 submits that the Investigation Officer has simply requested for direction from the concerned Court to facilitate inspection of the machinery. The machinery has not been given in interim custody of any party. The Police is not bound to comply with the procedural order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal. The parties may apply for execution in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 referring to the order of High Court of Madras in case of Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt Ltd. Vs. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd reported in (2020) 7 MLJ 475 and the affirmation order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2320/2021 by the Supreme Court of India, contends that the order regarding inspection of subject matter machinery is an interim award passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, it should be executed as a decree of civil Court. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot pass any direction for execution of the interim award. The Interlocutory Application is meritless.
Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
This Court vide order dated 7.1.2026 observed as under:
"This is an admitted position that the sole Arbitrator appointed for arbitration between the parties had appointed an Expert and an Inspector and directed them to inspect the subject-matter boring machine, which is lying at the Laxyo Yard under control of the Investigation Officer in relation to Crime No.413/2025. The petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 20-02-2026 19:04:20
3 WP-40971-2025 has informed the Investigation Officer with regard to passing of directions by the Arbitration Tribunal and requested to facilitate visit of the Tribunal appointed Expert. However, the Investigation Officer instead of directly replying to the request, has made observation with regard to facilitating the documents, which was not subject-matter of the request letter sent by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, considering the mandate of the Arbitration Tribunal, it is imperative for both the parties to comply with the directions as they have submitted their dispute for arbitration. The Arbitration Tribunal has appointed an Expert for inspection of the subject-matter machinery. The Expert may visit the Laxyo Yard, where the subject- matter machinery is available. It would have been more appropriate for the Tribunal appointed Expert and the Inspector to inform the Investigation Officer to facilitate their visit and inspection of the machinery, instead of either party applying for it.
The Tribunal appointed Expert may inform the Investigation Officer about proposed visit to inspect the machinery. It is expected that the Investigation Officer shall consider the request to facilitate inspection of the subject-matter machinery, in accordance with law." The subject matter machinery was seized by the Investigation Officer of the Police Station, Station Road, Ratlam in relation to crime no. 413/2025 for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The seized machinery, which is subject matter of arbitration between the parties, is presently in custodia legis of jurisdictional Magistrate. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court expected the Investigation Officer to consider the request to facilitate inspection of subject matter machinery in accordance with law. The subject matter Expert instead of approaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate directly approached the Investigation Officer.
This Court cannot override the powers of Jurisdictional Magistrate to deal with seized property. Therefore, the request for issuing direction to the Investigation Officer in the present interlocutory application in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction appears to be misconceived. The Expert appointed by the Tribunal may apply to the Jurisdictional Magistrate requesting for permission to inspect the subject matter machinery which is in custody of the concerned Court. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 20-02-2026 19:04:20 4 WP-40971-2025 Magistrate may consider the application, if any, filed by the Expert in furtherance of the order of Arbitration Tribunal in accordance with law.
So far as the objection as to executability of interim award is concerned, the order directing inspection of the subject matter machinery is an interim measure. The question of execution would arise, if the respondent No. 2, who is a party to arbitration creates any obstruction in the inspection of subject matter machinery in furtherance of the directions of Arbitral tribunal. The Police Station, Station Road, Ratlam is not a party to the arbitration proceeding. Therefore, the IO cannot deny to comply with the directions under the guise of non-executability of the interim measures, if the jurisdictional Magistrate so directs.
In view of the above discussion, no direction, as prayed in the interlocutory application is needed, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, IA No. 1502/2026 stands disposed off.
List the matter for final hearing after two weeks.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 20-02-2026 19:04:20