Tribunal's Non-Disclosure Spurs Jurisdictional Debate; Indian Courts Retain Supervisory Authority
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld an anti-arbitration injunction against MSA Global LLC Oman, marking a critical development in cross-border arbitration disputes. The judgment, delivered on December 12, 2025, affirms the jurisdiction of Indian courts over arbitration proceedings despite the Singapore venue designation by the ICC Court.
The case centers around a contract dispute between MSA Global LLC Oman and Engineering Projects India Ltd, involving delays in the fulfillment of contractual obligations. The controversy escalated when Mr. Andre Yeap, a co-arbitrator nominated by MSA Global, failed to disclose his prior professional engagement with the Defendant's affiliate, raising doubts about his impartiality.
The Delhi High Court, presided by Mr. Anil Kshetarpal and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., ruled that the non-disclosure was a "material non-disclosure," justifying the anti-arbitration injunction. The court emphasized the primacy of Indian law as the seat of arbitration, noting that the choice of Singapore as the venue did not alter the juridical seat, which remains India.
The judgment delves into the intricacies of Article 19 of the contract, which designates New Delhi, India, as the seat of arbitration, while the ICC Rules govern procedural aspects. The court clarified that the substantive legal framework, including impartiality standards, is governed by Indian law, ensuring fairness and transparency.
The ruling also addresses the jurisdictional challenge posed by an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore High Court, asserting that such foreign judgments cannot operate as res judicata under Indian law due to the lack of subject-matter competence.
The decision underscores the Delhi High Court's role in safeguarding against vexatious and oppressive arbitration proceedings, reinforcing the jurisdiction of Indian courts in international commercial arbitration disputes.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration - Non-disclosure by an arbitrator concerning prior professional engagement with a party or its affiliate can justify granting an anti-arbitration injunction by Indian courts if it raises justifiable doubts about impartiality, particularly when the arbitration seat is India.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 12(1), 12(2), 12(5), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 9, 11, 13, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sections 34, 39
MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821479
