$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 27.08.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 12.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 12.12.2025

+ FAO(OS) 88/2025, CM APPL. 47877/2025 & CM APPL.

47880/2025

MSA GLOBAL LLC OMAN .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra, Mr. Kartik Yadav, Mr. Pranav Vyas, Ms. Sumedha Chadha

and Mr. Sankalp Singh, Advs.

versus

ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD .....Respondents

Through: 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.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through this Appeal, the Defendant/Appellant herein assails the correctness of the Order passed on 25.07.2025 by the learned Single

Judge [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟], while injuncting continuation of arbitration proceeding in an anti-arbitration suit.

2. The grant of injunction is predicated predominantly on the ground that Mr. Andre Yeap [hereinafter referred to as „Mr. Yeap‟], a member of the Arbitral Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟], failed to make disclosure about his prior involvement in an arbitration proceeding involving the Defendant and Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal [hereinafter referred to as „Mr. Atwal‟] who happens to be the MD, Chairman, and Promoter of the Defendant. This then led the learned Single Judge to prima facie conclude that if allowed to continue, it would result in the proceedings which are oppressive and vexatious to the Plaintiff/Respondent. With respect to the objections, to the said effect, as raised by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein, the said Arbitrator/member of the Tribunal submitted the following explanation for his non-disclosure and continued non-disclosure by stating as follows:

“…Had I made the disclosure, the possibility of the Respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted.”

3. The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce [hereinafter referred to as „ICC Court‟] found that there was a non-disclosure on the part of Mr. Yeap, and held that such non-disclosure was ―regrettable‖, but permitted the continuance of the proceedings with the presence of Mr. Yeap, in respect of whom, the Plaintiff/Respondent had expressed serious reservations.

4. Herein, the parties shall be referred to by their status and rank in the suit, i.e., CS (OS) No. 243/2025.

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

6. The Defendant is a military and security systems integrator company based in Oman, whereas the Plaintiff is a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industry), Government of India, having its registered office at New Delhi. On 29.06.2015, the Ministry of Defence, Oman, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff and appointed it as the main contractor for a supply and build project at the Oman-Yemen border. Thereafter, on 21.09.2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-contract agreement [hereinafter referred to as „the Agreement‟] with the Defendant for design, supply, installation, integration, and commissioning of Border Security System for the Engineer-3 Project Section 3 and 4 on the Oman-Yemen border.

7. It may be noted here that the Agreement includes an arbitration clause, i.e., Article 19, which stipulates that all disputes arising between the parties shall be resolved by way of arbitration before a duly constituted Tribunal. It further provides that the jurisdiction in respect of the Contract Agreement shall vest exclusively with the Courts at New Delhi, India, whereas the place of arbitration shall be determined through mutual agreement between the parties. The said Article also mandates that any reference to arbitration shall be gov