Delhi High Court rules that Indian civil courts can grant anti-arbitration injunctions against foreign arbitrations if found vexatious, oppressive, or violative of Indian public policy principles.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In an important judgment, the Delhi High Court recently held that Indian civil courts are empowered to grant anti-arbitration injunctions even in foreign-seated arbitrations, provided the proceedings are vexatious, oppressive, or in violation of Indian public policy.
The ruling came in the case of Engineering Projects (India) Limited v MSA Global LLC (OMAN), where Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav clarified the scope of Indian civil courts’ jurisdiction under Section 9 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasizing their role as watchful guardians of civil rights and procedural fairness.
Background of the Case
The case involved a dispute between Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL), a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), and MSA Global LLC, a military and security systems integrator based in Oman. The companies had entered into a contractual agreement for a critical border security project along the Oman-Yemen border.
When disputes arose, MSA invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement, initiating Singapore-seated arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
EPIL challenged the arbitration after learning that Andre Yeap, one of the appointed arbitrators by MSA, had prior undisclosed connections with Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, MSA’s Managing Director and Promoter. Citing violations of Article 11 of ICC Rules, EPIL questioned Yeap’s impartiality, but both the ICC Court and the High Court of Singapore dismissed its challenge.
Subsequently, EPIL approached the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction to restrain the arbitral tribunal from further proceedings.
Court’s Findings
In its landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that Indian civil courts possess the authority to grant anti-arbitration injunctions in exceptional circumstances where arbitral proceedings are found to be vexatious, oppressive, initiated in bad faith, or contrary to the principles of natural justice and Indian public policy.
The Court held,
“Where the arbitral proceedings are shown to have been vexatious and oppressive in a manner calculated to harass the opposite party, the Civil Courts are not only empowered but also under a solemn duty to intervene.”
The Court firmly stated that when arbitration is misused as a tool of harassment, civil courts are not only empowered but also duty-bound to intervene. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav described the courts as “sentinels on the qui vive“, ever-watchful guardians of justice, tasked with ensuring procedural fairness and protecting parties from institutional abuse.
The Court said,
“To summarily relegate a party to the arbitral forum… would amount to a mechanical application of statutory principles, contrary to both equity and the broader constitutional mandate of access to justice.”
He warned against the mechanical relegation of disputes to arbitration when such processes serve no legitimate adjudicatory purpose and violate equitable standards and constitutional mandates of access to justice. After evaluating the case, the Court found that all three legal prerequisites, a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, favoured Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL).
Consequently, the Court granted an interim injunction, staying the arbitral proceedings and restraining both parties from further participation until the suit is resolved.
Case Title: Engineering Projects (India) Limited v MSA Global LLC (OMAN)
I.A. 9724/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On Arbitration
