{"id":371634,"date":"2026-01-05T10:00:40","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T04:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=371634"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:14:25","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T06:44:25","slug":"del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Also Read:<\/span> Do Adverse Decisions on Arbitration Challenges Warrant the Issuance of an Anti-arbitration Injunction: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s Decision in Engineering Projects<\/a><\/p>\n

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal challenging Single-Judge’s order granting an anti-arbitration injunction in an International Commercial Arbitration administered under the ICC Rules, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal*<\/span> and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., affirmed the Single Judge’s order and held that —<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Indian courts had jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration was New Delhi.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The admitted and deliberate non-disclosure by the appellant’s nominee arbitrator justified judicial intervention.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    The grant of an anti-arbitration injunction was warranted to prevent abuse of process and irreparable prejudice to the respondent.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

    In the instant matter, the appellant, MSA Global LLC Oman, is a military and security systems integrator based in Oman. The respondent, Engineering Projects India Ltd. (EPIL), is a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Heavy Industries, Government of India, having its registered office at New Delhi.<\/p>\n

    On 29-06-2015, the Ministry of Defence, Sultanate of Oman appointed EPIL as the main contractor for a supply-and-build project relating to a Border Security System at the Oman—Yemen border. Pursuant thereto, on 21-09-2015, EPIL entered into a sub-contract agreement with MSA Global LLC for the design, supply, installation, integration, and commissioning of the Border Security System for specified project sections.<\/p>\n

    Article 19 of the agreement provided for dispute resolution through arbitration under the ICC Rules, stipulated that “the jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India”, and further stated that the place of arbitration was to be mutually discussed and agreed upon. The agreement was also to be governed, construed, and take effect according to the laws and regulations of the Sultanate of Oman.<\/p>\n

    Disputes arose between the parties concerning delays and performance obligations. On 12-04-2023, the appellant invoked arbitration under the ICC Rules and nominated Mr. Andre Yeap, Senior Counsel from Singapore, as its co-arbitrator. In his Statement of Acceptance, Availability, Impartiality and Independence dated 19-03-2023, Mr. Yeap declared that he had “nothing to disclose”.<\/p>\n

    Subsequently, the ICC Court fixed Singapore as the place of arbitration. The arbitral proceedings continued, and on 19-06-2024, a First Partial Award was rendered, fastening a financial liability of approximately ₹30 crores on EPIL.<\/p>\n

    In January 2025, while preparing for evidentiary hearings, EPIL discovered a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 05-07-2024 in Neeraj Kumarpal Shah v. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, wherein it was recorded that Mr. Yeap had earlier acted as a co-arbitrator in an arbitration involving MSA Global LLC and its Managing Director, a fact which had not been disclosed. That earlier award had ultimately been set aside by the Gujarat High Court.<\/p>\n

    Alleging lack of disclosure and raising serious doubts regarding independence and impartiality, EPIL filed a challenge before the ICC Court under Article 14 of the ICC Rules. Although the ICC Court termed the non-disclosure “regrettable”, it rejected the challenge on merits and permitted Mr. Yeap to continue.<\/p>\n

    Parallel proceedings ensued in Singapore, including challenges to the partial award and applications seeking termination of Mr. Yeap’s mandate. Simultaneously, EPIL instituted Civil Suit before the Delhi High Court seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, and contended that continuation of the arbitration was oppressive, vexatious, and unconscionable.<\/p>\n

    Vide order dated 25-07-2025, the Single Judge granted an anti-arbitration injunction, restraining continuation of the ICC arbitration. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the present appeal.<\/p>\n

    Moot Points<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      Whether Article 19 of the agreement determined the juridical seat of arbitration to be India or Singapore, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Whether the admitted non-disclosure by a member of the arbitral tribunal was of such significance as to justify the exceptional grant of an anti-arbitration injunction by an Indian Court?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Court’s Reasoning<\/h3>\n

      The Court observed that while arbitration is premised on minimal judicial intervention, such restraint is not absolute and cannot extend to situations where the arbitral process itself is shown, prima facie, to be contrary to fundamental principles of fairness, neutrality, and judicial propriety.<\/p>\n

      Jurisdiction and Seat of Arbitration<\/p>\n

      The Court examined Article 19 of the agreement and emphasised that an arbitration clause must be read “holistically, contextually and harmoniously,” and not in a fragmented or disjunctive manner.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that Article 19.1 did more than merely refer disputes to arbitration under ICC Rules; it expressly stipulated that “the jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India.”<\/span> According to the Court, such a clause is a “clear and categorical expression of party intent” and ordinarily identifies the juridical seat, unless displaced by unmistakable contrary indicia.<\/p>\n

      The Court rejected the contention that the fixation of Singapore as the place of arbitration by the ICC Court amounted to a determination of the seat and held that the ICC Court’s role in fixing the place was administrative and based on convenience, and that such fixation could not override the parties’ contractual allocation of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

      The Court further observed that Article 19.2, which made the laws of the Sultanate of Oman applicable, was confined to the substantive law governing the performance and operation of the contract and had no bearing on dispute resolution or the supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration. Likewise, Article 19.3, which referred to the “place” of arbitration being mutually agreed, was construed as a provision relating to venue rather than seat.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that the seat of arbitration determines the supervisory jurisdiction and the applicable standards governing impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Once the seat was held to be India, Indian law, particularly Section 12<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, became determinative.<\/p>\n

      The Court, therefore, held that Delhi, India, was the juridical seat of arbitration and that Indian courts possessed supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process.<\/p>\n

      Maintainability of the Civil Suit<\/p>\n

      While addressing the objection to the maintainability of the suit, the Court reiterated that “the jurisdiction of the civil courts under Section 9<\/a> of the CPC<\/a> is plenary, and unless specifically excluded, the civil courts have jurisdiction to try and decide all civil disputes.”<\/span> Relying on Dhulabha<\/span>i v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 40<\/a>, the Court observed that civil court jurisdiction remains intact where it is alleged that the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.<\/p>\n

      The Court held that the suit before the Single Judge was not a proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, but an independent civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a>. Consequently, the Court asserted that neither Section 42<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a> nor principles relating to arbitral minimalism operated as a bar to the institution of such a suit.<\/p>\n

      Non-Disclosure and Arbitrator Neutrality<\/p>\n

      On the issue of non-disclosure, the Court noted that Section 12<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a> cast a continuous and mandatory obligation on arbitrators to disclose any circumstance likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality.<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that the arbitrator had admittedly failed to disclose his prior arbitral engagement involving the appellant and its Managing Director, despite becoming aware of it during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court found the explanation tendered by the arbitrator, that “had I made the disclosure, the possibility of the Respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted”<\/span> when “tested against the objective standard of a reasonably informed and fair-minded third party, such omission undermines the necessity of neutrality and detracts from the integrity of the arbitral process”<\/span> and consequently breach the safeguards envisaged under Section 12<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      The Court affirmed the Single judge’s finding that the duty of disclosure is continuous and non-discretionary, and that “an arbitrator cannot withhold disclosure on the ground that, in his or her view, the fact or association is benign or too remote to influence impartiality.”<\/span> The Court held that the Single Judge had correctly applied the statutory standard under Section 12<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Anti-Arbitration Injunction<\/p>\n

      While reiterating that anti-arbitration injunctions are to be granted sparingly, the Court affirmed that civil courts retain jurisdiction where continuation of arbitration would be oppressive, vexatious, or unconscionable, or where the arbitral process is conducted in breach of fundamental principles of fairness.<\/p>\n

      The Court concurred with the Single Judge’s assessment that the attending circumstances rendered continuation of the arbitration proceedings oppressive and unconscionable. Upon examining the conduct of the appellant holistically, the Court found no error in the conclusion that it reflected “a clear pattern of abuse of process intended not to resolve disputes in good faith, but rather to subject the respondent to procedural hardship and jurisdictional entanglement.”<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Court held that the Single Judge had correctly applied the settled principles governing interim injunctions and that all three requirements, existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury, stood satisfied.<\/p>\n

      Court’s Decision<\/h3>\n

      Finding no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the Court affirmed the order and held that the discretion exercised by the Single Judge did not warrant appellate interference.<\/p>\n

      [MSA Global LLC<\/span> v. Engineering Projects India Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9617<\/a>, Decided on 12-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

      *Judgment by Justice Anil Kshetarpal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

      Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

      Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Mr. Kartik Yadav, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Ms. Sumedha Chadha and Mr. Sankalp Singh, Counsel for the Appellant<\/span><\/p>\n

      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, Counsel for the Respondent\/State<\/span><\/p>\n

      Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

      \"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The core controversy centres on the effect of deliberate non-disclosure by a nominee arbitrator, the determination of the juridical seat of arbitration, and the extent of supervisory jurisdiction of Indian courts notwithstanding the fixation of a foreign venue by an arbitral institution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":371658,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[65049,96191,96189,2543,77253,63144,29576,75265,96192,15551,96190,59282],"class_list":["post-371634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-anti-arbitration-injunction","tag-arbitrator-impartiality","tag-arbitrator-non-disclosure","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-harish-vaidyanathan-shankar","tag-icc-arbitration","tag-international-commercial-arbitration","tag-justice-anil-kshetarpal","tag-non-disclosure-by-arbitrator","tag-seat-of-arbitration","tag-section-12-arbitration-act","tag-venue-of-arbitration"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-05T04:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-07T06:44:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-05T04:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-07T06:44:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Anti-Arbitration Injunctions\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions","og_description":"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-05T04:30:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-07T06:44:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/","name":"Del HC ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-05T04:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-07T06:44:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Delhi High Court upheld grant of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions for Deliberate Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Anti-Arbitration Injunctions"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/del-hc-anti-arbitration-injunctions-non-disclosure-arbitrator-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Non-Disclosure, Seat Battles and Abuse of Process: Inside Delhi High Court Ruling on Anti-Arbitration Injunctions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Anti-Arbitration-Injunctions.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":298424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/mere-use-of-word-arbitration-or-arbitrator-not-enough-to-construe-an-arbitration-agreement-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":0},"title":"Mere use of word \u2018arbitration\u2019 or \u2018arbitrator\u2019 not enough to construe an agreement to be an arbitration agreement: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267525,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/27\/seat-of-arbitration-change-of-venue-supreme-court-india-judgment-territorial-jurisdiction-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":1},"title":"Change of venue does not result in change of the seat of arbitration; holding otherwise would create a recipe for litigation: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location other than the place fixed by the arbitrator as the \u2018seat of arbitration\u2019 should not be regarded and treated as a change or relocation of jurisdictional \u2018seat\u2019. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-190.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254766,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/27\/icadr-rules-regarding-procedure-come-into-play-only-after-arbitration-commences-before-appropriate-jurisdiction-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":2},"title":"ICADR Rules regarding procedure come into play only after arbitration commences before appropriate jurisdiction of law: Del HC summarises law on seat, venue of arbitration","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: While observing that the role of ICADR Rules shall come into play with regard to the procedure to be followed, only after the arbitration commences before the appropriate jurisdiction of law, Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated the observation of BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC, (2020) 4\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":368352,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/02\/anti-arbitration-injunction-engineering-projects-delhi-high-court-2025\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":3},"title":"Do Adverse Decisions on Arbitration Challenges Warrant the Issuance of an Anti-arbitration Injunction: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s Decision in Engineering Projects","author":"Editor","date":"December 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sumit Chatterjee*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Anti-arbitration injunction Engineering Projects","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Anti-arbitration-injunction-Engineering-Projects.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Anti-arbitration-injunction-Engineering-Projects.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Anti-arbitration-injunction-Engineering-Projects.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Anti-arbitration-injunction-Engineering-Projects.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233170,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/31\/deepening-crisis-in-the-seat-venue-debate-in-indian-arbitration-an-analysis-of-recent-developments-from-the-supreme-court-and-the-bombay-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":4},"title":"Deepening Crisis in the Seat Venue Debate in \u2018Indian Arbitration\u2019: An Analysis of Recent Developments from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 31, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dr. Nidhi Gupta*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243660,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/10\/del-hc-on-invocation-of-arbitration-clause-if-a-party-appoints-arbitrator-on-its-own-and-does-not-receive-confirmation-from-another-party-should-former-approach-court-under-s-11-of-arbitration-ac\/","url_meta":{"origin":371634,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | On invocation of arbitration clause, if a party appoints arbitrator on its own and does not receive confirmation from another party, should former approach Court under S. 11 of Arbitration Act? HC discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Kameswar Rao, J., decided a petition wherein on the invocation of the arbitration clause, one of the parties appointed the sole arbitrator on its own. The instant petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner and the respondents entered into a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=371634"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371634\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":371912,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371634\/revisions\/371912"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/371658"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}