Facts
The petitioner, The Packshot (India) Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim protection pending commencement of arbitration against Trent Limited, the retail arm of the Tata Group.
The dispute arose from Service Agreements dated 24 August 2015 and 21 May 2021, under which the petitioner provided specialised photography services, creative-content development and integrated e-commerce solutions to Trent. According to the petitioner, it had developed specialised business systems, proprietary workflows, confidential methods and a trained workforce while servicing Trent’s retail brands.
The petitioner alleged that its former Managing Director, Ms. Sapna Sisodia, who had access to confidential information and proprietary business processes, became associated with Yoshi Agency Private Limited, which was subsequently engaged by Trent during the subsistence of the contractual relationship. According to the petitioner, Trent indirectly benefited from the petitioner’s confidential information, trained employees and business know-how through Yoshi Agency, thereby violating the confidentiality, employee non-solicitation and survival clauses contained in the Service Agreement.
The petitioner also relied upon communications addressed to Trent and the Tata Ethics Office regarding the alleged diversion of business and misuse of confidential information. It ultimately invoked arbitration and approached the Bombay High Court seeking preservation of documents, electronic records and business information pending constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for grant of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
- Whether Trent should be restrained from using the petitioner’s confidential information and proprietary business methods.
- Whether preservation of documents, electronic records and metadata relating to Trent’s engagement with Yoshi Agency was necessary pending arbitration.
- Whether the delay in filing the petition disentitled the petitioner from obtaining interim relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner clarified that it was not objecting to Trent appointing another vendor, since the Service Agreement itself was non-exclusive. Its grievance was that Trent allegedly used Yoshi Agency as a means of obtaining the benefit of the petitioner’s protected employees, confidential information, proprietary workflows and specialised business methods.
It relied upon Clause 15.16, which dealt with employee non-solicitation, and Clause 15.18, which provided that confidentiality and intellectual-property obligations survived termination of the agreement.
The petitioner further contended that the respondent’s own pleadings contained inconsistencies regarding the date on which Yoshi Agency was engaged. While Trent claimed that Yoshi was engaged only after expiry of the contractual restrictions, it simultaneously relied upon an agreement executed on 15 June 2022, when the parties’ Service Agreement was still in force.
The petitioner also relied upon Yoshi Agency’s audited financial statements reflecting trade receivables from Trent during the relevant period. It argued that preservation of invoices, purchase orders, work orders, vendor records, payment documents, emails, electronic communications and metadata was essential to enable effective adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Respondent’s Arguments
Trent opposed the petition primarily on the ground of delay, submitting that the alleged breach dated back to 2022 whereas the Section 9 petition had been filed only in 2026.
It argued that the Service Agreement was expressly non-exclusive, permitting Trent to appoint additional vendors whenever required. According to the respondent, merely engaging Yoshi Agency could not amount to breach of contract.
The respondent further contended that Clause 15.16 applied only to existing employees and not to former employees or independent companies such as Yoshi Agency. It pointed out that Ms. Sapna Sisodia had ceased to be an employee before becoming associated with Yoshi Agency.
Trent also argued that Yoshi Agency had been engaged as an independent commercial entity because it offered competitive services and that any dispute concerning Ms. Sisodia’s conduct was purely an internal matter between her and the petitioner.
Finally, the respondent submitted that the petitioner was effectively seeking final relief under the guise of interim protection.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that the purpose of Section 9 is to preserve the efficacy of arbitration and protect the subject matter of the dispute until the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted. The Court’s role at this stage is not to finally determine contractual rights or record findings on breach.
The Court observed that although delay is an important factor while considering interim relief, it is not by itself fatal where preservation of evidence continues to be necessary.
It accepted, prima facie, that the agreement permitted Trent to appoint additional service providers. However, it held that the petitioner’s grievance extended beyond appointment of another vendor and related to the alleged indirect use of confidential information and protected employees through Yoshi Agency.
The Court observed that the interpretation of the employee non-solicitation clause and the survival clause required detailed examination during arbitration and could not be conclusively decided in proceedings under Section 9.
Importantly, the Court distinguished preservation of evidence from grant of prohibitory injunctions, holding that preservation merely safeguards material relevant to arbitration without deciding liability or prejudging the dispute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that there was prima facie material indicating disputes requiring arbitral adjudication and that significant documentary and electronic evidence remained in the respondent’s possession.
It accepted the petitioner’s submission that emails, metadata, server records, vendor documents and electronic communications may not remain available indefinitely and that preservation would ensure effective adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal.
However, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to identify any specific confidential information presently being misused. Consequently, it declined to grant a blanket injunction restraining Trent from carrying on its business or using confidential information, observing that such relief would substantially overlap with the final relief sought in arbitration.
The Court also held that issues relating to discovery, inspection and production of documents were more appropriately dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal after its constitution.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the petition and directed Trent Limited to preserve all relevant documents, commercial records, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, emails, electronic communications, metadata and other records relating to its engagement with Yoshi Agency Private Limited.
The Court further directed preservation of records relating to specified personnel and work connected with the Zudio and Westside portfolios, to the extent such records were relevant to the disputes.
However, the Court refused to grant a blanket injunction restraining Trent from using or disclosing alleged confidential information, declined to order immediate disclosure or production of documents before the High Court and left questions relating to discovery and production to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Court clarified that all observations were prima facie and confined to the Section 9 proceedings, and that the Arbitral Tribunal would independently determine the rights and liabilities of the parties on the basis of the evidence produced before it.
Case Details
Case: The Packshot (India) Private Limited v. Trent Limited
Court: Bombay High Court
Case No.: Arbitration Petition (L) No. 10726 of 2026
Coram: Justice Amit Borkar
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Jha with Mr. Hetan Jain, instructed by Law Global.
For the Respondent: Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Zahan Setalvad, instructed by Jerone Merchant & Partners.