Anti-Arbitration Injunction in Foreign-Seated Arbitrations: The Delhi High Court’s Controversial Intervention in Engineering Projects (India) Limited v. MSA Global LLC (Oman)

This submit is posted on behalf of Arnav Sharma, Jindal International Legislation Faculty, Sonipat, India

Introduction

On twenty fifth July 2025, a single decide bench of the Delhi Excessive Court docket delivered a judgment in Engineering Initiatives (India) Restricted v. MSA International LLC (Oman) in CS (OS) 243 of 2025[1] that has stirred appreciable discourse in worldwide arbitration circles. The elemental query at situation within the immediate case was whether or not an Indian Court docket can grant an anti-arbitration injunction to remain proceedings in a foreign-seated arbitration on grounds of the proceedings turning oppressive and vexatious because of procedural impropriety, however internationally well-settled rules of minimal judicial intervention, celebration autonomy, and lex arbitri that govern worldwide industrial arbitration? The Delhi Excessive Court docket answered within the affirmative, holding that Indian civil courts possess inherent energy underneath Part 9 learn with Part 151 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 (“CPC”) to intervene underneath distinctive circumstances the place the arbitral course of itself turns into a automobile of abuse.

This ruling carries profound implications for India’s aspirations to place itself as a world arbitration hub. By granting reduction that undermines the unique jurisdiction of the Courts on the Seat (Singapore within the immediate case), the ruling has invited scrutiny vis a vis its alignment with the territorial precept as elaborated upon in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Companies Inc. (“BALCO”)[2], and with internationally accepted ‘greatest practices’ that are well-settled contemplating that they promote predictability and finality in cross-border dispute decision.

Information

Engineering Initiatives (India) Restricted (“EPIL”), a public sector enterprise, entered right into a sub-contract settlement with MSA International LLC (Oman) (“MSA”) for the design, provide, set up, integration, and commissioning of a border safety system on the Yemen-Oman border. The settlement contained an arbitration clause stipulating that any disputes could be resolved by the use of arbitration underneath the foundations of the Worldwide Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) with Oman’s regulation being the governing regulation, whereas conferring unique jurisdiction upon the courts at New Delhi, India. For the sake of readability, Article 19 of the settlement between the events containing the aforementioned arbitration clause, is extracted in its entirety as underneath:

“ARTICLE 19

LAW AND ARBITRATION

19.1 Disputes if any, arising out of or associated to or any approach related with this settlement shall be resolved amicably within the First occasion or in any other case via arbitration in accordance with Guidelines of Arbitration of the Worldwide Chamber of Commerce. The jurisdiction of the Contract Settlement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India.

19.2 This Settlement shall be ruled by, construed and take impact in all respects in line with the Legal guidelines and Laws of the Sultanate of Oman.

19.3 Any dispute or distinction of opinion between the events hereto arising out of this Settlement or as to its interpretation or development shall be referred to arbitration. The Arbitration Panel shall include three Arbitrators, one Arbitrator to be appointed by every celebration and the third Arbitrator being appointed by the 2 Arbitrators already appointed, or in occasion that the 2 Arbitrators can not agree upon the third Arbitrator, third Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Worldwide Chamber of Commerce. The place of the Arbitration shall be mutually mentioned and agreed.

19.4 The choice of the Arbitration Panel shall be remaining and binding upon the events.”

In the midst of efficiency of the contract, disputes arose between the events regarding alleged delays in contractual efficiency. Consequently, MSA invoked the arbitration settlement in 2023 nominating Mr. Andre Yeap SC (“Mr. Yeap”) as a co-arbitrator. Thereafter, on 20.04.2024, Mr. Yeap submitted his assertion of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence to the ICC, expressly declaring that he had “nothing to reveal” with respect to any information or circumstances that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. EPIL nominated Hon’ble Justice Mr. Arjan Kumar Sikri (Retd.) as its co-arbitrator. The Tribunal was duly constituted on 05.09.2023 with Mr. Jonathan Acton Davis KC being appointed because the presiding arbitrator by the co-arbitrators.

In June 2024, the tribunal rendered a primary partial award on MSA’s utility for interim measures. EPIL challenged this award earlier than the Singapore Excessive Court docket. In December 2024, in preparation of the evidentiary hearings, EPIL, via a Gujarat Excessive Court docket Judgment dated 05.07.2024 titled Neeraj Kumarpal Shah v. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, found the Mr. Yeap had been beforehand appointed as an arbitrator in separate proceedings involving Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal who occurs to be MSA’s Managing Director, Chairman, and Promoter. This prior involvement had not been disclosed when Mr. Yeap accepted his appointment. As such, on 19.01.2025, EPIL filed a problem utility earlier than the ICC Court docket underneath Article 14(1) of the ICC Guidelines alleging non-disclosure and elevating doubts about Mr. Yeap’s independence and impartiality. The ICC Court docket in its choice acknowledged the non-disclosure as “regrettable” however rejected EPIL’s problem on deserves, discovering that the circumstances didn’t set up justifiable doubts relating to Mr. Yeap’s impartiality or independence. Subsequently, EPIL filed an utility earlier than the Singapore Excessive Court docket underneath Article 13(3) of the UNCITRAL Mannequin Legislation looking for willpower on the validity of Mr. Yeap’s continued participation, and in addition concurrently approached the Delhi Excessive Court docket by submitting the moment go well with looking for a declaration and everlasting injunction restraining MSA from persevering with the ICC arbitration with the current tribunal composition. Additional complicating the matter, MSA filed an enforcement petition earlier than the Delhi Excessive Court docket for the popularity and enforcement of the First Partial Award whereas additionally acquiring an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore Excessive Court docket restraining EPIL from persevering with its proceedings earlier than the Delhi Excessive Court docket.

The Dispute

The crux of the authorized controversy on this case was round three inter-related questions.

Whether or not an Indian Civil Court docket has the jurisdiction to entertain a go well with looking for an anti-arbitration injunction towards a foreign-seated arbitration, significantly in gentle of the truth that the events had agreed to arbitrate underneath ICC Guidelines with Singapore being designated because the seat. On this respect, MSA relied upon the judgment in Indus Cellular Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Improvements Pvt. Ltd. (“Indus Cellular”)[3] to contend that when events conform to a particular seat of arbitration, it’s solely the Courts at that seat that retain supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral course of to the exclusion of all different Courts. MSA additional argued that the go well with was barred by Part 5 and Part 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 that are the statutory embodiment of the precept of minimal judicial intervention and the territoriality doctrine affirmed in BALCO.

Whether or not the non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap rendered the arbitration proceedings vexatious, oppressive, and violative of Indian Public Coverage. On this regard, EPIL argued that Mr. Yeap’s failure to reveal this materials info constituted a manifest violation of Article 11 of the ICC Guidelines, which mandates arbitrators to reveal any information or circumstances seemingly to offer rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. EPIL contended that such non-disclosure strikes on the root of celebration consent and procedural equity thereby rendering the whole thing of the arbitral course of illegitimate. Then again, MSA relied upon Article 11.2 of the ICC Guidelines learn with Clause 3.1.3 of the IBA Pointers which mandate disclosure provided that an arbitrator has been appointed on two or extra events previously three years by a celebration or one among its associates; MSA contends this requirement had not been glad within the immediate case.

III. Whether or not EPIL was entitled to interim injunctive reduction restraining the continuation of arbitral proceedings pending remaining disposal of the go well with.

As such, this dispute was centred round reconciling celebration autonomy and minimal judicial intervention on one hand, with the Court docket’s obligation to forestall abuse of course of and guarantee procedural equity on the opposite [4].

The Resolution

On Maintainability

On the very outset, the Delhi Excessive Court docket affirmed the sturdy presumption in favour of the civil court docket’s jurisdiction as underneath Part 9 of the CPC, which confers authority to adjudicate all fits which can be of a civil nature until the identical is expressly or via implication barred by statutory regulation. The Court docket relied on the case of Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh[5] and held that the exclusion of civil court docket jurisdiction can’t be readily inferred and have to be clearly supplied by regulation. Additional, the Court docket distinguished the rulings in Indus Cellular and BALCO, noting that whereas these judgments do affirm the seat precept and the territoriality doctrine, they didn’t create an absolute bar on civil courts’ energy to grant an anti-arbitration injunction in distinctive circumstances. The Court docket discovered steering within the Union of India v. Dabhol Energy Firm[6] and ONGC v. Western Firm of North America [7], whereby it was held that Indian Courts do have the ability to grant injunctions towards overseas proceedings at any time when the circumstances make the proceedings oppressive, or the place such an injunction is critical or expedient, or when the ends of justice so require; with the previous particularly referring to Sections 5 and 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and stating that neither of them oust, solely, the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. Moreover, the Court docket emphasised the excellence between anti-suit injunctions and anti-arbitration injunctions, noting that the latter require a better threshold of oppression or vexatiousness to be met, citing examples alongside the strains of doubts as to the consent of the events, allegations of forgery, or elementary procedural impropriety which might meet the aforementioned threshold. Crucially, the Court docket held that the precept of minimal judicial intervention doesn’t and should not translate into negligible interference[8], and stated this significant distinction has been preserved to make sure that non-public dispute decision mechanisms akin to arbitration don’t flip oppressive or function in an unruly method, which may be deemed opposite to the foundational rules of judicial propriety.

On Vexatiousness and Oppressiveness of the Proceedings

The Court docket started the dialogue on this regard by defining “vexatious” as proceedings instituted within the absence of ample authorized foundation and primarily supposed to harass, harass, and/or burden the opposing celebration, and “oppressive” as conduct that unjustly imposes harsh burdens or unfair disadvantages upon a celebration to the proceedings. Thereafter, in reference to the ICC Guidelines, the Court docket famous that Article 11 therein casts a categorical obligation upon arbitrators to make full and frank disclosure of any circumstance that may give rise to justifiable doubts relating to their impartiality or independence. It was emphasised that this obligation have to be assessed from the angle of the events as is evident from the language of the availability insofar because it says “within the eyes of the events”, somewhat than from an arbitrator’s subjective notion of bias. Additional, it was famous that the arbitrator can not withhold disclosure on the bottom that the actual fact seems benign or distant in lieu of the truth that the duty arises when there exists even a chance that the knowledge, if identified to the events, would possibly give rise to a terror of bias within the events’ minds.

The Court docket discovered that Mr Yeap’s non-disclosure was deliberate and calculated. Regardless that Mr. Yeap admitted in his response to the preliminary problem utility that he had made enquiries and was conscious of the potential want for disclosure, he selected to not do the identical based mostly on his subjective evaluation that 4 years had handed because the prior appointment within the matter regarding MSA’s Chairman. Furthermore, Mr. Yeap had acknowledged within the preliminary proceedings that “had I made the disclosure, the opportunity of the Respondent looking for to problem my impartiality couldn’t be discounted”. The Court docket considered this assertion as proof of the truth that the non-disclosure was intentional and aimed toward avoiding objection. Additional, the Court docket held that the ICC Court docket’s choice on the problem, whereas acknowledging the non-disclosure as “regrettable”, erroneously misplaced the burden on EPIL to reveal precise bias somewhat than specializing in the breach of the obligatory disclosure requirement, thereby noting that the choice was a traditional case of operation profitable, however affected person lifeless. The logic behind this was that, whereas the ICC Court docket’s choice could seem sound on the floor and in compliance with the formal process, it didn’t deal with the substantive lack of confidence within the arbitral course of’s neutrality.

On Interim Injunction

As such, making use of the triple check of (i) prima facie case, (ii) stability of comfort, and (iii) irreparable hurt for interim injunction as underneath Order XXXIX Guidelines 1 and a couple of of the CPC, the Court docket discovered that every one three circumstances had been glad and accordingly stayed the ICC arbitral proceedings till remaining disposition of the go well with and restrained each events from taking part within the arbitration with the tribunal’s current composition.

Concluding Remarks

Whereas the judgment articulates laudable considerations about procedural equity and impartiality, the strategy that has been adopted raises critical questions on jurisdictional overreach, inconsistency with India’s pro-arbitration legislative intent, potential injury to India’s credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Firstly, essentially the most elementary flaw within the judgment lies in its erosion of the seat precept which is unarguably a cornerstone of worldwide arbitration regulation[9]. The UNCITRAL Mannequin Legislation, which varieties the very foundation of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is based on the seat precept, which has additionally been unequivocally affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court docket in instances akin to BALCO. By granting an anti-arbitration injunction on this matter, the Delhi Excessive Court docket successfully usurped the supervisory jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Singapore Court docket had already thought-about and rejected EPIL’s problem to Mr. Yeap’s appointment, but the Delhi Excessive Court docket substituted its personal judgment on the identical situation. This created an untenable scenario of conflicting judicial orders: the Singapore Excessive Court docket granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the Delhi proceedings on 23 Could 2025, whereas the Delhi Excessive Court docket proceeded to grant an anti-arbitration injunction on 25 July 2025. Judicial conflicts of such nature undermine the predictability and finality that events search when selecting arbitration, to not point out the violation of rules of comity between courts. Moreover, it’s not as if EPIL was rendered remedy-less earlier than the seat courts at Singapore. There have been a number of appeals accessible to Singapore Excessive Court docket’s choice on the problem to Mr. Yeap’s impartiality. The Delhi Excessive Court docket’s place may nonetheless have been appreciated had EPIL had no treatment left on the seat courts besides to proceed with vexatious and oppressive arbitral proceedings, however this was not the case. Additional, the judgment’s reliance on Dabhol Energy Firm and ONGC v. Western Firm had been misplaced contemplating that these instances concerned enforcement of overseas awards or financial institution ensures, and never the query of intervening in ongoing foreign-seated arbitrations with lively supervisory courts. To not point out that the judgment’s characterisation of MSA’s conduct as vexatious seems somewhat selective and outrightly ignores EPIL’s personal discussion board buying tendencies, i.e., submitting parallel challenges earlier than ICC, Singapore Courts, and Delhi Courts concurrently.

Secondly, whereas the Court docket accurately emphasised the significance of arbitrator disclosure, the underlying rules had been utilized in a problematic method. The Court docket failed to contemplate that 4 years had handed since Mr. Yeap’s prior appointment, and neither the ICC Guidelines nor the IBA Pointers mandate disclosure of appointments separated by such a temporal hole until it may be demonstrated that the identical constitutes a sample of repeated appointments; this normal is akin to Entry 20 of the Vth Schedule to India’s 1996 Act. The ICC Court docket’s choice fastidiously thought-about these requirements and concluded that whereas disclosure would have been prudent, a failure to do the identical didn’t give rise to justifiable doubts about Mr. Yeap’s impartiality or independence. The Delhi Excessive Court docket’s characterization of this reasoned choice as operation profitable, however affected person lifeless is somewhat dismissive, fails to interact with the substantive reasoning, and fails to additionally take into consideration the truth that worldwide arbitration establishments just like the ICC possess experience in assessing arbitrator conflicts; it’s a clear case of ‘due course of paranoia’ [10]. Home courts must be cautious about second-guessing such determinations, particularly when institutional guidelines present clear mechanisms and requirements for such challenges. Additional, the judgment solely conflates two distinct points: whether or not disclosure was required, and whether or not non-disclosure renders the arbitrator truly biased.

Lastly, the current judgment runs counter to India’s goal to develop into an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, as expressed within the Legislation Fee’s 264th Report. By permitting a non-seat court docket to remain a foreign-seated arbitration based mostly on alleged procedural impropriety, the choice sends a troubling sign to worldwide events i.e., selecting India as a contracting celebration, even with a overseas seat, exposes you to pointless intervention by Indian Courts; that is exactly what the BALCO regime sought to eradicate[11]. The judgment additionally creates a harmful precedent for different jurisdictions. If Indian courts can intervene in Singapore-seated arbitrations, what’s to cease Chinese language courts from intervening in London-seated arbitrations, or vice versa? The end result could be a race to acquire competing injunctions, undermining the whole thing of the worldwide arbitration framework.? Past doctrinal considerations, that is additionally a transparent case of sensible ineffectiveness. The ICC tribunal and Singapore courts will not be certain by the Delhi Excessive Court docket’s judgment and have continued to recognise the arbitration’s validity. Singapore subsequently issued a everlasting anti-suit injunction towards EPIL on 18.09.2025, and initiated contempt proceedings when EPIL obtained yet one more ex parte injunction from the Delhi courts restraining MSA from taking part within the Singapore contempt proceedings. This cycle of competing injunctions serves neither celebration’s pursuits and brings each judicial methods into disrepute, which is a large concern, particularly when this ordeal was wholly avoidable contemplating that underneath the New York Conference, any award rendered on this arbitration would have finally been enforceable in India solely via the procedures in Half II of the 1996 Act, at which level EPIL may have raised objections underneath Part 48, together with alleged violation of public coverage. The supply of this post-award treatment additionally undermines the need for pre-emptive intervention.

A greater strategy would have been for the Court docket to (i) recognise that the seat court docket in Singapore has unique supervisory jurisdiction, (ii) acknowledge that EPIL has satisfactory treatments via the ICC problem course of and challenges earlier than Singapore courts underneath Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Mannequin Legislation, together with post-award resistance to enforcement, and (iii) decline jurisdiction on discussion board non conveniens grounds whereas permitting EPIL to pursue its treatments earlier than the aforementioned acceptable fora.

[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5072.

[2] (2012) 9 SCC 552.

[3] (2017) 7 SCC 678.

[4] See https://www.scconline.com/weblog/submit/2022/10/20/party-autonomy-or-the-choice-of-seat-the-essence-of-arbitration/ for a dialogue.

[5] 1968 SCC OnLine SC 40.

[6] 2004 SCC OnLine Del 1298.

[7] (1987) 1 SCC 496.

[8] See https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2025/08/delhi-high-court-clarifies-scope-of-anti-arbitration-injunctions-in-foreign-seated-proceedings/ for a dialogue.

[9] See https://indiacorplaw.in/2025/09/08/jurisdictional-overreach-and-the-illusion-of-equity-a-critique-of-the-delhi-high-courts-intervention-in-epi-v-msa-global/ for a dialogue.

[10] See https://discussion board.nls.ac.in/nlsir-online-blog/arbitrator-non-disclosure-before-the-delhi-high-court/ for a dialogue.

[11] See https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/a-shield-of-justice-or-a-sword-through-the-seat-the-delhi-high-courts-contentious-anti-arbitration-injunction/ for a dialogue.