Delhi High Court Stays Foreign-Seated Arbitration, Cites Arbitrator's 'Regrettable' Non-Disclosure as Vexatious and Oppressive - 2025-09-15

Delhi High Court Halts ICC Arbitration, Citing Arbitrator's Non-Disclosure as 'Vexatious and Oppressive'

New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial oversight in arbitration, the Delhi High Court has stayed an ongoing International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration, deeming it "vexatious and oppressive." Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted an anti-arbitration injunction in a suit filed by Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPI), a public sector enterprise, against Oman-based MSA Global LLC.

The court's decision hinged on the "deliberate concealment" by an arbitrator of his prior professional relationship with the defendant's top executive, a failure the court found to be a "grave and incurable error" that tainted the entire arbitral process.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from a 2015 sub-contract agreement between EPI and MSA for a border security project on the Oman-Yemen border. The agreement stipulated that disputes would be resolved through ICC arbitration, while granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts in New Delhi.

When disputes arose, MSA initiated ICC arbitration and nominated Mr. Andre Yeap SC as its co-arbitrator. In his mandatory disclosure statement, Mr. Yeap declared he had "Nothing to disclose" regarding any circumstances that might question his impartiality. However, EPI later discovered that Mr. Yeap had previously been appointed as an arbitrator in a separate matter involving Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, the Managing Director and Promoter of MSA.

EPI challenged Mr. Yeap's appointment before the ICC Court, which, while terming the non-disclosure "regrettable," rejected the challenge on merits. Undeterred, EPI filed the present suit before the Delhi High Court, seeking to halt the arbitration on grounds that the non-disclosure rendered the proceedings unconscionable and violative of India's public policy.

---

Clashing Arguments: Party Autonomy vs. Judicial Fairness

EPI's Submissions: Represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, EPI argued that the non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap was a manifest violation of Article 11 of the ICC Rules, which mandates full disclosure of any facts that could raise justifiable doubts about an arbitrator's independence. Mr. Sethi contended that this failure struck at the root of procedural fairness, making the continuation of the arbitration oppressive. He asserted that Indian courts possess the jurisdiction to issue anti-arbitration injunctions to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

MSA's Counter-Arguments: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for MSA, vehemently opposed the suit, arguing it was a non-maintainable instance of "forum shopping." He contended that since the parties had chosen a specific arbitral mechanism, challenges to the tribunal's composition should be addressed within that framework or by the courts at the seat of arbitration. He further argued that the ICC Court had already adjudicated the challenge and that EPI had an adequate remedy to resist the enforcement of any potential award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---

The Court's Decisive Analysis: Upholding Judicial Intervention

Justice Kaurav, in a detailed judgment, first affirmed the court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit. While acknowledging the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration, the court held that this does not create a blanket ouster of a civil court's jurisdiction, especially in "extraordinary" circumstances.

"To permit so would not only impeach the credibility of the private, but statutorily regulated, mechanism of arbitration but also would compromise the sanctity and plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts," the court observed.

The judgment established that when arbitral proceedings are demonstrably vexatious and oppressive, a civil court is duty-bound to intervene to protect a litigant from victimization.

On the Arbitrator's Non-Disclosure

The court found the non-disclosure to be the central issue, stating it went to the "root of the matter." It highlighted that the test for disclosure under ICC Rules is what "might be of such a nature as to call into question the arbitrator's independence in the eyes of the parties."

The court found Mr. Yeap's concealment to be deliberate, noting his own admission that a disclosure could have prompted a challenge from EPI.

"Thus, evidently, the non-disclosure was calculated and deliberate and was made in order to avoid any objection by the opposite party... The very act of non-disclosure, despite awareness and knowledge, makes one suspect in the eyes of the party and in such a scenario, the party cannot be compelled to have its rights adjudicated by an adjudicator who has admittedly failed to comply with mandatory requirements to the detriment of the party."

The court concluded that compelling EPI to participate in a proceeding with such a foundational flaw would be "unreasonably harsh, burdensome, devoid of reason and justness. And thus, oppressive for the plaintiff."

---

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that EPI had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in its favor and the risk of irreparable injury, the court granted the interim injunction.

The court ordered a stay on the Arbitral Tribunal's proceedings pending the final disposal of the suit.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that while party autonomy is a cornerstone of arbitration, it is not absolute. The fundamental principles of natural justice, impartiality, and transparency remain paramount. The decision underscores that Indian courts will act as "sentinel on the qui vive" to prevent the abuse of the arbitral process, particularly when foundational ethical obligations like full disclosure are breached.