Introduction

The judgement in MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd. was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) in FAO(OS) 88/2025 (along with CM APPL. 47877/2025 & CM Appl. 47880/2025). The division bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (“Division Bench”), addressed a critical challenge regarding the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction. The appeal was preferred by MSA Global LLC Oman (“MSA Global”) against an interim order dated 25 July 2025 passed by a learned single judge of the Court. The ld. single judge stayed the proceedings of an ongoing international arbitration on the ground that a member of the Arbitral Tribunal, Mr. Andre Yeap (“Mr. Yeap”), had failed to disclose his prior professional involvement with MSA Global’s promoter, potentially rendering the proceedings “oppressive and vexatious”. This case primarily examines the jurisdictional limits of Indian courts with regard to issuance of anti-arbitration injunctions in foreign seated arbitrations, the impact of non-disclosure by an arbitrator, and the interplay between judicial comity and the doctrine of lex fori when parallel proceedings exist in international supervisory courts.

Factual Background

The dispute in this matter arose between Engineering Projects India Ltd. (“Engineering Projects”), a public sector enterprise under the Government of India, and MSA Global, a military and security systems integrator based in Oman. On 29 June 2015, the Ministry of Defence, Oman, appointed Engineering Projects as the main contractor for a supply and build project at the Oman-Yemen border. Subsequently, on 21 September 2015, Engineering Projects entered into a sub-contract agreement with MSA Global (“the Agreement”) for the design, supply, and installation of a Border Security System. The sub-contract agreement included an arbitration clause stipulating that disputes would be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce Rules, 2021 (“ICC Rules”). Following disputes over contractual delays, MSA Global invoked the arbitration clause in April 2023 and nominated Mr. Yeap as its nominee-arbitrator. In accordance with ICC Rules, Mr. Yeap submitted a signed statement on 19 April 2023, declaring he had "nothing to disclose". The ICC International Court of Arbitration (“ICC”) fixed Singapore as the venue for the arbitration and confirmed the tribunal members. The proceedings resulted in a first partial award on 19 June 2024 which imposed a financial liability of approximately Rs. 30 crores on Engineering Projects.

The central controversy emerged on 17 January 2025 when the counsel for Engineering Projects discovered a judgment revealing that Mr. Yeap had failed to disclose a prior professional engagement. Specifically, in November 2018 MSA Global and its Chairman, Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal had nominated Mr. Yeap as a nominee-arbitrator in a separate proceeding wherein a favourable award was passed in favour of Mr. Atwal in April 2021.

In response, Engineering Projects filed a challenge before the ICC, alleging a lack of disclosure and raising doubts about Mr. Yeap's neutrality and impartiality. On 23 January 2025 Mr. Yeap provided an explanation for the non-disclosure, admitting that although he became aware of the potential conflict in October 2024, he chose not to disclose it, stating:

"...Had I made the disclosure, the possibility of the Respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted".

While the ICC ultimately acknowledged the non-disclosure as "regrettable," it rejected the challenge on its merits on 27 February 2025. Parallel to the arbitration proceedings, the parties engaged in extensive litigation in Singapore. On 13 November 2024, Engineering Projects challenged the first partial award before the Singapore High Court (“SGHC”). Following the discovery of the arbitrator’s non-disclosure, Engineering Projects sought leave to amend this challenge to include grounds of bias with a request which the SGHC rejected on 27 March 2025.

Engineering Projects subsequently filed an application under Article 13(3) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”), read with Section 3(1) of the International Arbitration Act of Singapore, 1994 (“SG Arbitration Act”), seeking to terminate Mr. Yeap's mandate. These applications were eventually rejected by the SGHC on 7 July 2025. During the course of these proceedings, Engineering Projects moved a discontinuance application to withdraw the Article 13(3) challenge. However, MSA Global opposed this withdrawal, and the SGHC deferred passing orders on the application. On 23 May 2025, the SGHC granted an anti-suit injunction in favour of MSA Global restraining Engineering Projects from continuing their civil suit in India or initiating others civil proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

In India, MSA Global initiated legal proceedings by filing a petition under Sections 44, 46, 47, and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) seeking the enforcement and execution of the first partial award. In response, Engineering Projects filed an anti-arbitration suit bearing CS (OS) No. 243/2025 (“Anti-arbitration suit”) on 15 April 2025 seeking a declaration and injunctive relief against the continuation of the arbitration. Within this anti-arbitration suit, Engineering Projects moved an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”).

Despite the anti-suit injunction granted by the SGHC on 23 May 2025, the learned single judge of the Court commenced day-to-day hearings in the anti-arbitration suit on 26 May 2025. While these judicial hearings were ongoing in India, the Arbitral Tribunal in Singapore proceeded with and concluded the evidentiary hearings, subsequently closing them for written submissions.

Ultimately, on 25 July 2025, the learned single judge of the Court granted an injunction in Anti-arbitration suit halting the arbitration proceedings.  The Court ruled that the arbitrator’s non-disclosure when examined holistically alongside MSA Global’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of abuse of process (“Impugned Order”). This led the Court to conclude that the continuation of the arbitration would render it oppressive and unconscionable.

Statutory Framework

The statutory framework governing this dispute centers on the intersection of the Act, CPC, and the Model Law, particularly regarding the limits of judicial intervention in foreign-seated arbitrations. The primary substantive provision being Section 12 of the Act, which mandates full disclosure by an arbitrator of any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts regarding their independence or impartiality. This read alongside Article 11 of the ICC Rules imposes a rigorous & objective standard for disclosure requiring arbitrators to reveal any professional or personal connections that could be perceived as a conflict. This is regardless of their own subjective assessment of their neutrality.

On the procedural and jurisdictional front, the dispute invokes the inherent powers of civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC and Section 151 of the CPC. These provisions grant the Court the authority to issue interim orders, including anti-arbitration injunctions to prevent an abuse of process or to protect a party from proceedings that are "oppressive or unconscionable." The application for such relief is governed by Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC which requires the satisfaction of the tripartite test: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

Crucially, the framework of the Model Law (specifically Article 12 & 13) & the SG Arbitration Act are central because seat of arbitration was Singapore. These statutes establish the seat of the arbitration as the primary supervisory authority for challenging an arbitrator's mandate. The core statutory conflict thus concerns the extent to which an Indian court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under the CPC to halt an arbitration when the statutory challenge mechanisms provided under the lex loci arbitri which have already been exhausted or are currently being engaged.

Submissions of the Parties

Submissions on behalf of MSA Global

MSA Global contended that the learned single judge of the Court in the Impugned order ignored the fact that the seat of arbitration was fixed as Singapore by ICC, thereby establishing the General Division of the SGHC as the supervisory court. Consequently, it was argued that Indian courts lack the jurisdiction to intervene rendering the Impugned order per incuriam in light of the settled judicial precedents on foreign-seated arbitrations and the principles for the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction. In support of these submissions, MSA Global relied upon the cases of Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. ('BALCO');[1] Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Air Visual Ltd.[2]; BGS SGS Soma, JV v. NHPC Ltd.[3] and Hindustan Construction Company v. NHPC Ltd.[4]

It was further argued that Indian courts have no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the tribunal at the interim stage. MSA Global asserted that the Anti-arbitration suit is not maintainable by virtue of the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel, as the issue of Mr. Yeap’s bias had already been adjudicated on three occasions in Singapore. i.e., during the partial setting aside of the first partial award, the challenge on additional grounds of bias and the challenge against the ICC’s decision. MSA Global characterized the conduct of Engineering Projects as vexatious and oppressive claiming they had indulged in forum shopping and violated judicial comity as well as the existing SGHC anti-suit injunction.

Submissions on behalf of Engineering Projects

Per contra, Engineering Projects submitted that the scope for interference in a miscellaneous appeal against an interim injunction is extremely narrow and that MSA Global failed to demonstrate any perversity in the Impugned order. It was argued that because the underlying Agreement is governed by Indian law they were justified in filing the Anti-arbitration suit to stop a process that had become oppressive and unconscionable due to the admitted and deliberate non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap both at the time of his appointment and thereafter.

Engineering Projects maintained that the suit is prima facie maintainable and pointed out that MSA Global had failed to provide any precedent suggesting such a suit cannot lie before Indian courts. It was further contended that under Indian law, specifically Section 12 of the Act non-disclosure by an arbitrator per se vitiates the arbitral proceeding. Finally, it was argued that the judicial authority of civil courts remains preserved under the CPC and Section 151 of the CPC to prevent the misuse of the arbitral process especially when a tribunal acts contrary to the fundamental tenets of judicial procedure.

Analysis & Findings

The Division bench in the present appeal focused its analysis on the interpretation of Article 19 of the Agreement which governs the dispute resolution process. The Court noted that Article 19.1 stipulates that disputes shall be resolved through arbitration under ICC Rules while explicitly stating that the jurisdiction of the contract Agreement shall lie with the courts at New Delhi, India. Although article 19.2 provides that the agreement is governed by the laws of the Sultanate of Oman. Thus, the Court found this part to be limited to the substantive legal framework for the performance of the contract such as local labor laws and regulatory compliance rather than the dispute resolution process. Furthermore, while Article 19.3 allowed for the mutual agreement of a place of the arbitration which led the ICC to fix Singapore where the Court observed that the parties never mutually agreed on a seat.

In determining the juridical seat the Court emphasized that the "Seat of arbitration" denotes the juridical home and identifies which courts have supervisory jurisdiction over the proceedings. Drawing from the precedent in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd.[5], the Court reasoned that when parties specify a court of exclusive jurisdiction that designation typically guides the determination of the seat. Consequently, the Court held that the explicit conferral of exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at New Delhi under Article 19.1 constituted a clear expression of the parties' intent to designate New Delhi, India as the juridical seat. The administrative fixation of Singapore by the ICC was construed merely as a fixation of the venue for convenience and did not alter the juridical seat.

The Court further addressed the jurisdictional competence of Indian civil courts to entertain an anti-arbitration suit. It held that the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC is plenary and is excluded only by specific statutory bars. Referencing the landmark five judge bench decision in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[6] the Court noted that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted when a statutory tribunal fails to act in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The Court also highlighted the effect of the 2015 Amendment to Section 2(2) of the Act which enables Indian courts to apply Section 9 of the Act and other provisions to international commercial arbitrations even if the place of arbitration is outside India unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Regarding the significance of the non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap the Court underscored that the law of the seat governs the assessment of an arbitrator's impartiality and independence. Under Section 12 of the Act an arbitrator has a mandatory and continuous duty to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about their neutrality. The Court found that Mr. Yeap’s failure to disclose a prior professional engagement involving MSA Global's Chairman, Mr. Atwal despite being conscious of the potential consequences constituted a material breach of this statutory duty. This omission fell squarely within the categories delineated in the Fifth Schedule of the Act sufficient to induce justifiable doubt in the mind of an objective person.

Further, the court also noted that before the SGHC took any decision on the applications filed before it. Engineering Projects not only filed the suit and sought an injunction in which notice stood issued but also filed an application for withdrawing its challenge from the SGHC. Hence, the argument that Engineering Projects has indulged in ‘forum shopping’ or ‘elected remedy’ is prima facie incorrect.

The court analysed that all three factors important for grant of injunction namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, were established by the learned Single Judge itself and that Engineering Projects cannot be compelled to participate in an arbitral proceeding before the Tribunal whose impartiality is in serious doubt.

Finally, the Division Bench rejected the arguments raised by MSA Global regarding res judicata and estoppel. It held that for a foreign judgment to operate as res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC it must be pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since India was the designated juridical seat, the SGHC acting merely as a venue court lacked the subject-matter competence to restrain Engineering Projects from approaching the supervisory seat court. Furthermore, the doctrine of estoppel under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was found inapplicable as it was not established that Engineering Projects had led MSA Global to believe that no civil suit would be filed. The Court concluded that the conduct of MSA Global including pressing for evidentiary hearings despite pending challenges and opposing Engineering Projects' discontinuance application demonstrated a concerted pattern of abuse of process.

Verdict

The Division Bench rejected MSA Global’s appeal on the ground that it lacked merit. The Division Bench upheld the conclusion of the learned single judge in the Impugned order that the arbitration proceedings were prima facie vexatious and oppressive due to the grave error of non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap. While affirming the injunction, the Court clarified that its adjudication constituted only a prima facie opinion for the purpose of the interim relief and should not be construed as a final expression on the merits of the suit. The Division Bench ordered that the Anti-arbitration suit be decided independently and uninfluenced by the observations made in the Impugned order.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd. reinforces the principle that in international commercial arbitrations the seat of arbitration serves as the centre of gravity for judicial supervision. By entertaining the challenge against the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench addressed whether Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction to grant anti-arbitration injunctions when the parties have already submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign supervisory court in this case. The case highlights that while the power to grant an anti-arbitration injunction exists under Section 9 of the CPC it must be exercised with extreme "circumspection" and only in "exceptional circumstances" where proceedings are proven to be oppressive or unconscionable. The controversy surrounding Mr. Yeap’s non-disclosure and his candid admission that disclosure might have invited a challenge to his impartiality posed a significant question regarding the fundamental tenets of judicial procedure.

Ultimately, the proceedings underscore the importance of judicial comity and the doctrine of forum non conveniens (inconvenient forum). The decision clarifies that once a party has actively participated in the supervisory jurisdiction of the seat (Singapore) and failed to obtain relief there seeking a parallel injunction in India may be viewed as forum shopping or an abuse of process. This judgment serves as a pivotal reminder that the Act and international frameworks like the UNCITRAL Model Law are intended to prevent jurisdictional entanglement and ensure that the mandate of an arbitrator is challenged through the specific mechanisms provided by the chosen seat of arbitration.