The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Introduction
The gavel falls not in Singapore, but in a courtroom in Delhi. A foreign-seated arbitration, a process designed for minimal court interference, has been abruptly halted by an Indian civil court. This isn’t just a legal curiosity; it’s a seismic shift in India’s jurisprudence, challenging the long-held tenet that courts should keep their hands off international arbitrations. The Delhi High Court’s landmark judgment in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. MSA Global LLC1 provides a narrow, yet potent, pathway for courts to intervene, affirming that the principles of justice can, and must, override the sanctity of an abusive arbitral process.
This is a story of clashing legal philosophies. The Arbitration Act2, was built on the foundation of minimal judicial intervention, a philosophy aimed at making India an arbitration-friendly destination. But what happens when that very process is compromised? What if a party-nominated arbitrator fails to disclose a past relationship with the very company that nominated them? The legal community had been grappling with this very question, with courts taking divergent paths. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi3 took a hands-off approach, asserting that the arbitral tribunal, under Section 16 of the Act, had the sole authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. Section 16 is a foundational principle of arbitration law, known as kompetenz-kompetenz, which empowers the tribunal to decide on its own competence, including challenges to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement itself. This was the embodiment of the kompetenz-kompetenz principle. The message was clear: let the arbitrators handle it.
However, a different tune was being played by the Calcutta High Court in Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC4. This court argued that the civil court’s plenary jurisdiction, as enshrined in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19085, could not be entirely extinguished. Section 9 is a broad provision that grants civil courts the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by a statute. It held that in “exceptional cases” where the arbitration agreement was a nullity or the proceedings were unconscionable, the court’s power to intervene was preserved. Two different high courts, two different answers. This legal ambiguity was the stage for the Engineering Projects case.
So, how did the Delhi High Court reconcile this conflict? It created a new framework, not by choosing one precedent over the other, but by forging a new path. The court’s reasoning was meticulous. It first established that neither Section 5 (the general rule of non-intervention) nor Section 45 (which deals with a court’s power to refer a matter to arbitration) of the 1996 Act explicitly barred a civil court’s jurisdiction in cases of procedural abuse. It relied on the well-established test from Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, which holds that civil court jurisdiction is preserved where statutory tribunals or proceedings violate fundamental principles of justice. Then, it adopted a two-limbed test to determine if the arbitration was “vexatious and oppressive.” The proceedings were deemed vexatious if initiated without sufficient legal basis to harass the opponent. They were oppressive if they imposed an unjust burden, such as forcing a state-owned enterprise to spend public funds on a compromised tribunal.
Applying this test, the court found a compelling case for intervention. The arbitrator’s admission that he deliberately withheld information about his prior appointment to avoid a challenge was a conscious breach of the duty of disclosure. The court’s reasoning was profound here: the duty to disclose is not about the arbitrator’s subjective view of their impartiality but about what a reasonable person, in the shoes of the parties, would deem relevant. This duty is party-centric. The claimant’s relentless pursuit of the arbitration in multiple forums was also a clear sign of oppressive conduct.
Ultimately, the court granted the injunction, applying the time-honored principles of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This order sets out the conditions for granting temporary injunctions, which require the existence of a prima facie case of wrongdoing, a balance of convenience favoring the party seeking the injunction, and the risk of irreparable injury. The court found that all three conditions were met. The message from the Delhi High Court is powerful and clear: while Indian courts will respect the autonomy of international arbitration, they will not tolerate a process that is fundamentally tainted by deceit and procedural abuse. This judgment isn’t just a legal win; it’s a firm statement that the pursuit of justice is paramount, even in the rarefied world of international arbitration.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. MSA Global LLC marks a significant moment in India’s legal history, providing a powerful answer to the question of whether civil courts can intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations. This decision isn’t just about a specific case; it’s a profound declaration that the principle of minimal judicial intervention, while a cornerstone of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is not an absolute bar to justice. By carving out a narrow yet crucial exception for cases involving vexatious and oppressive conduct and a blatant abuse of process, the court has sent a clear message: the integrity of the arbitral process is paramount, and courts will not be passive spectators when it is fundamentally compromised. This ruling reasserts the plenary power of civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC and affirms their role as guardians of fundamental legal principles, even in the context of international disputes.
Looking ahead, this judgment sets a new standard for parties engaged in foreign-seated arbitrations with a nexus to India. It empowers companies, particularly public sector undertakings, to seek judicial relief in their home jurisdiction when confronted with bad faith conduct, such as deliberate non-disclosure by arbitrators. This could lead to a more cautious and transparent approach from parties and arbitrators in international proceedings involving Indian entities. The decision also strengthens the perception that while India is committed to arbitration, it will not allow the process to be exploited. It may influence other jurisdictions to consider similar safeguards, creating a ripple effect across the global arbitration landscape.
However, the ruling also raises a critical question for the future: How will other jurisdictions with competing claims of supervisory jurisdiction react to an Indian court staying a foreign-seated arbitration? What happens if the seat court, say in Singapore, decides to proceed with the arbitration despite the Indian injunction? The potential for a jurisdictional clash is now a very real possibility, setting the stage for a new and complex chapter in the ongoing narrative of international arbitration law.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Anuja Pandit
