Delhi High Court Dismisses MSA Global’s Appeal, Upholds Stay On ICC Arbitration In Oman-India Border Security Dispute Over New Delhi Seat And Co-Arbitrator Non-Disclosure
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar on 12 December 2025 dismissed the appeal and upheld a single judge’s anti-arbitration injunction directing discontinuance of an ICC arbitration between an Indian public sector entity and an Oman-based company. The Bench accepted that New Delhi was the arbitral seat, and not Singapore, despite the ICC Court having fixed Singapore as the place of arbitration proceedings. It further found that the arbitration had become “oppressive and vexatious” in view of a co-arbitrator’s admitted decision not to disclose prior involvement in a related dispute connected to one party’s chairman.
A public sector enterprise of the Government of India engaged as main contractor for a supply-and-build border project in Oman entered into a sub-contract with a foreign security systems integrator for design, supply, installation, integration, and commissioning of a border security system. The agreement contained an ICC arbitration clause; it stated that jurisdiction “shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India” while the place of arbitration was to be mutually agreed. Delays led to invocation of arbitration and a request under ICC Rules, with the appellant nominating a co-arbitrator and the co-arbitrator submitting an acceptance statement indicating “he had nothing to disclose.” The ICC Court later fixed Singapore as the place of arbitration.
The arbitration continued and a first partial award dated 19.06.2024 imposed an approximate liability of Rs. 30 crores on the respondent. In January 2025, the respondent raised non-disclosure/bias concerns, filed a challenge before the ICC Court, and the tribunal adjourned hearings. Parallel proceedings included enforcement steps in India and challenges in Singapore, and the respondent instituted a civil suit in April 2025 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Bench recorded that the appeal challenged an order passed “while injuncting continuation of arbitration proceeding in an anti-arbitration suit.” It noted the injunction was founded predominantly on non-disclosure, and that this led to a prima facie view “that if allowed to continue, it would result in the proceedings which are oppressive and vexatious to the Plaintiff/Respondent.” The Court reproduced the arbitrator’s explanation: “…Had I made the disclosure, the possibility of the Respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted.” It also recorded that the ICC Court found non-disclosure and considered it “regrettable” while permitting continuance.
On the arbitration agreement, the Court extracted the clause stating: “The jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India.” It further noted the clause that “The place of the Arbitration shall be mutually discussed and agreed.”
The Bench stated the legal relevance of seat: “The ‘Seat of arbitration’ carries significant legal implications for the applicability of the A&C Act. The seat of arbitration denotes the juridical home of the proceedings. It would also determine the Courts which would have the jurisdiction to supervise the arbitral proceedings.” It also stated: “the law of seat of arbitration constitutes the foundational legal framework governing the validity, supervision, and integrity of the arbitral process.”
On governing standards for impartiality/disclosure, the Court observed: “Standards of impartiality comprising both the objective perception of bias and the subjective duties of disclosure are matters that belong to” the law of the seat, and were inconsistent, “the procedural rule must yield; it cannot reinterpret the protections enacted by the law of the seat.” It concluded: “Indian law shall govern the present proceedings.”
On jurisdiction and comity in relation to the Singapore anti-suit injunction, the Court recorded: “the juridical seat of arbitration being India confers exclusive supervisory jurisdiction upon the Indian courts,” and that an anti-suit injunction by the Singapore court “cannot attain conclusive effect so as to operate as res judicata before the seat court.”
At the interim stage, the Bench stated that while strong prima facie views “as far as possible, should be avoided,” it held: “But this case falls in the rarest of rare cases, and this Bench is of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge requires no interference.”
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal while clarifying the limited nature of its determination at the injunction stage: “Consequently, with the caveat that the present adjudication, having been rendered in respect of an injunction, only constitutes as prima facie opinion, purely for the purposes of deciding the present lis, the appeal is dismissed with the observations that the Impugned Order shall not be construed as a final expression on the merits of the case, and the suit will be decided independently, uninfluenced by the observations made in the Impugned Order.”
“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the Appeal lacks merit and is hence dismissed. The present Appeal, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Mr. Kartik Yadav, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Ms. Sumedha Chadha and Mr. Sankalp Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Angad Kochhar, Mr. Himanshu Setia, Mr. Vedant Kashyap, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Riya Kumar, and Ms. Richa Khare, Advs.
Case Title: MSA Global LLC Oman v Engineering Projects India Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11232-DB
Case Number: FAO(OS) 88/2025.
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
