Delhi High Court Upholds Stay On ICC Arbitration In Oman-India Border Security Dispute, Dismisses MSA Global's Appeal
The Delhi High Court has upheld an anti-arbitration injunction issued by a single judge to discontinue an ICC arbitration between Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL) and MSA Global LLC (Oman). The Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar on 12th December, 2025 has affirmed that New Delhi was the arbitral seat and...
The Delhi High Court has upheld an anti-arbitration injunction issued by a single judge to discontinue an ICC arbitration between Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL) and MSA Global LLC (Oman). The Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar on 12th December, 2025 has affirmed that New Delhi was the arbitral seat and not Singapore and declared that the arbitration had become "oppressive and vexatious" particularly in view of the co-arbitrator's wilful failure to disclose his prior involvement in a related dispute involving the EPIL's Chairman.
The dispute arose out of a sub-contract given to MSA Global by EPIL in 2015 to design and implement a border security system along the Oman-Yemen border. In 2023, the ICC arbitration clause was invoked by MSL Global after disagreements arose, designating Senior Counsel Andre Yeap of Singapore as the co-arbitrator. Later, Singapore was administratively designated as the "place of arbitration" by the ICC Court.
Conflicts further developed when EPIL learned, via a 2024 Gujarat High Court ruling, that Mr. Yeap had co-arbitrated a 2018 arbitration involving Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, the chairman of MSA Global, a fact that was never revealed at the time of the composition. EPIL filed an anti-arbitration lawsuit before the Delhi High Court after challenging his continuing before the ICC Court and the Singapore High Court, both of which refused to dismiss him. MSA Global filed an appeal after the Single Judge issued an injunction on July 25, 2025, prohibiting the arbitration from taking place.
MSA Global contended before the Division Bench that Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction as Singapore was the juridical seat. It claimed that the decision of the Single Judge was contradictory to an anti-suit injunction imposed by the Singapore High Court and relied on decisions in BALCO, BGS Soma, and Mankastu cases to argue that foreign-seated arbitrations cannot be injuncted by Indian courts. Additionally, it was argued that EPIL had engaged in 'forum-shopping' and that the Delhi proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata as the ICC Court and Singapore High Court had previously rejected the arbitrator's non-disclosure.
On the other hand, EPIL argued that the jurisdictional seat was established by Article 19 of the agreement, which specifically assigned exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts at New Delhi, India. It contended that the arbitrator's own explanation showed deliberate suppression of information directly affecting provisions against impartiality, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitration had become unfair, according to EPIL, especially since the Tribunal insisted on the proceedings despite ongoing challenges.
Agreeing with EPIL, the Division Bench held that although Article 19.1 required ICC arbitration, it also stated that "the jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India." The Bench emphasized that Singapore's designation as the "place of arbitration" by the ICC Court was an administrative choice of venue rather than seat. The Court noted that "the mere reference to 'place' cannot override a clear designation of exclusive jurisdiction" and that the parties had purposefully omitted the decision of place and expressly included New Delhi Courts to have jurisdiction.
To elaborate its decision, the court held: “It may be noted that a foreign anti-suit injunction is ordinarily rendered non-conclusive in India owing to its failure to satisfy the fundamental statutory tests laid down in Section 13(a) of the CPC, i.e., it does not qualify as a judgment delivered by a “court of competent jurisdiction” in relation to the supervisory functions vested exclusively in the seat court”.
Regarding the issue of arbitrator neutrality, the Court emphasized that a rigorous, ongoing duty of disclosure is imposed under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, and that such non-disclosure would raise legitimate questions and potentially taint the arbitral procedure under Indian law. “The statutory regime of the law of the seat must govern the assessment of impartiality," the Court emphasized.
The court held that since the arbitration proceeded despite objections and had become oppressive, the Single Judge had the right to intervene. The Court found that the requirements for an interim injunction were satisfied in terms of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and prima facie case.
Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction, ruling that New Delhi remained the seat and had supervisory jurisdiction and that the arbitration could not proceed with the current Tribunal composition.
Case: MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd
FAO(OS) 88/2025
Coram: Justices Anil Kshetrapal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date Of Judgement: 12 December 2025
Appearances: Rajiv Nayar (For the Appellant); Sandeep Sethi (For Respondent)