The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an interim order that restrained the continuation of an ICC arbitration, holding that Indian courts had jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction where the arbitral process was found to be oppressive and tainted by serious non-disclosure by an arbitrator. The Court held that the “juridical seat of arbitration being India confers exclusive supervisory jurisdiction upon the Indian courts, and consequently, any anti-suit injunction issued by the Singapore court acting merely as the venue jurisdiction cannot attain conclusive effect so as to operate as res judicata before the seat court”
The dispute arose out of delays and alleged breaches in the performance of a sub-contract under which Engineering Projects India Ltd. (EPIL) engaged MSA Global LLC, Oman, for the design, supply, installation and commissioning of a border security system along the Oman–Yemen border, pursuant to a principal contract awarded by the Ministry of Defence, Oman. During the ICC arbitration, EPIL objected to the continuance of proceedings after it emerged that an arbitrator nominated by MSA Global had failed to disclose his prior involvement in an earlier arbitration involving the appellant and its promoter. Accepting that the non-disclosure raised serious doubts over impartiality, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by order dated July 25, 2025, injuncted the continuation of the arbitration.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the Single Judge’s July 25, 2025, order injuncting the arbitration between Engineering Projects India Ltd. (EPIL), a Government of India PSU, and MSA Global LLC, Oman.
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that Singapore, having been fixed by the ICC as the place of arbitration, was the juridical seat and that Indian courts therefore lacked jurisdiction. On a detailed interpretation of the arbitration clause, the Bench held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of courts at New Delhi reflected the parties’ intention to designate India as the juridical seat, while Singapore was only the venue fixed for convenience. Consequently, Indian law governed issues of arbitrator independence and impartiality.
Emphasising the mandatory disclosure regime under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that non-disclosure of circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality strikes at the root of the arbitral process. It noted that institutional approval by the ICC or parallel proceedings before Singapore courts could not dilute the supervisory role of Indian courts when the seat lay in India.
The Bench further held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to intervene in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the arbitral process, and that anti-arbitration injunctions, though to be exercised sparingly, are permissible where continuation of arbitration would be unconscionable, vexatious, or procedurally unfair. Finding no perversity in the Single Judge’s assessment of prima facie case, and irreparable harm, the appeal was dismissed.
Related Post-
Appearance
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Mr. Kartik Yadav, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Ms. Sumedha Chadha and Mr. Sankalp Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Angad Kochhar, Mr. Himanshu Setia, Mr. Vedant Kashyap, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Riya Kumar and Ms. Richa Khare, Advocates.
