MSA GLOBAL LLC (OMAN) v ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED

Facts

MSA Global LLC (Oman) was a sub-contractor to Engineering Projects (India) Ltd (EPIL) on a project. Their contract provided for ICC arbitration, was governed by Omani law, and also stated that jurisdiction of the contract agreement lay with the courts at New Delhi. The ICC Court fixed Singapore as the seat and the parties signed terms of reference confirming it. On 19 June 2024 the tribunal issued a First Partial Award in MSA's favour.

EPIL's application to set aside parts of the award failed, and on 27 March 2025 the court refused to let it add apparent bias by one arbitrator as a ground. The ICC Court had already rejected EPIL's challenge to that arbitrator on 27 February 2025. EPIL then filed a court challenge to the arbitrator in Singapore, and on 15 April 2025, while that was pending, began proceedings in Delhi for an injunction stopping the arbitration with the existing tribunal. MSA applied in Originating Application No 519 of 2025 and obtained an interim anti-suit injunction on 23 May 2025. EPIL continued in Delhi regardless. The Singapore court dismissed its challenge on 7 July 2025, but on 25 July 2025 the Delhi court granted an interim anti-arbitration injunction. On 15 August 2025 the Singapore court granted a permanent anti-suit injunction, and these are its grounds.

Issues

1. What residual role the clause conferring jurisdiction on the New Delhi courts left to those courts in a Singapore-seated arbitration
2. Whether Art 5 of the Model Law excluded a non-seat court from stopping the arbitration
3. Whether the contractual and non-contractual bases for an anti-suit injunction were made out
4. Whether MSA's delay, or the Delhi court's interim order, barred a permanent injunction

Holding

The High Court allowed MSA's application and granted a permanent anti-suit injunction against EPIL in respect of the Delhi Proceedings. It awarded costs on the standard basis rather than the indemnity basis MSA sought: $15,000 for the interim injunction, $20,000 for the final injunction and $11,397.20 in disbursements.

Reasoning

Neither party proved Omani or Indian law, so the court applied Singapore law. Following Sul América Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] 1 Lloyd's Rep 275, where an arbitration agreement sits alongside a jurisdiction clause naming another country's courts, the named court has very little left to do. It cannot act as a supervisory court in place of the seat court, nor injunct an arbitration validly begun. The lack of an express seat made no difference because the parties agreed to ICC Rules under which the seat was fixed.

Under the International Arbitration Act 1994 the Singapore court decides challenges to arbitrators, and Art 5 of the Model Law allows court intervention only where the Model Law provides. EPIL argued that anything not expressly prohibited was allowed, and that its Delhi case was about vexatious arbitration rather than a challenge. The court rejected both points: the Delhi case rested on the same complaint of non-disclosure and bias, and Art 13(3) expressly lets a tribunal continue while a challenge is pending. Cases EPIL cited involved disputes outside a valid arbitration agreement.

The contractual basis was met because the Delhi Proceedings breached the dispute resolution clause. The non-contractual basis was also met, as the proceedings were a collateral attack on Singapore decisions and vexatious or oppressive, an abuse compounded by continuing after the interim injunction. MSA had acted promptly once EPIL sought to drop its Singapore challenge, and the Delhi merits hearing began only after the interim injunction. EPIL could not rely on an order obtained in breach of that injunction.

From the judgment