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

Key Takeaways

• Delhi HC granted anti‑arbitration injunction for foreign‑seat case.
• Court invoked Section 9 CPC, deeming proceedings oppressive.
• Ruling challenges established seat principle and BALCO precedent.
• Potential chilling effect on India’s arbitration‑friendly reputation.
• Highlights tension between party autonomy and judicial oversight.

Summary

On 25 July 2025 the Delhi High Court issued an anti‑arbitration injunction halting a Singapore‑seat ICC arbitration between Engineering Projects (India) Limited and MSA Global LLC. The court relied on Section 9 of the CPC, finding the tribunal’s composition oppressive after arbitrator Mr Yeap failed to disclose a prior appointment involving MSA’s chairman. It distinguished earlier Indian precedents such as BALCO, asserting that Indian courts may intervene in foreign‑seated arbitrations under exceptional circumstances. The decision sparked debate over India’s commitment to minimal judicial intervention and its ambition to become an arbitration hub.

Pulse Analysis

The Delhi High Court’s unprecedented injunction underscores a growing willingness of domestic courts to scrutinise foreign‑seated arbitrations. By invoking Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the bench framed the arbitrator’s nondisclosure as a procedural abuse that rendered the ICC proceedings oppressive. This approach departs from the traditional seat principle, which reserves supervisory authority for the courts at the arbitration’s designated location, typically Singapore in this case. Legal scholars note that such intervention blurs jurisdictional boundaries and raises questions about comity among international tribunals.

For practitioners, the judgment signals heightened risk for parties that embed Indian jurisdiction clauses while selecting foreign seats. The decision could complicate enforcement under the New York Convention, as Indian courts may now entertain pre‑emptive challenges rather than relying on post‑award remedies like Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Foreign investors may reassess contractual drafting strategies, favouring explicit waiver clauses or opting for seats with robust, insulated judicial frameworks to avoid parallel injunctions that stall dispute resolution.

Looking ahead, India faces a policy crossroads: preserve its pro‑arbitration reforms or adopt a more restrictive stance that could erode confidence in its legal ecosystem. A calibrated amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act—clarifying the limited circumstances for anti‑arbitration injunctions—could restore alignment with global best practices while still protecting parties from genuine procedural misconduct. Balancing judicial oversight with the principle of minimal intervention will be essential to sustain India’s ambition as a preferred arbitration venue.