Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
ARGO CORAL MARITIME LTD – Respondent
CS(OS)-868/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dayan Krishnan, Saurabh Seth, Sumer Dev Seth, Neelampreet Kaur, Abhiroop Rathore, Kabir Dev, Sukhvir Singh, Sukrit Seth
For the Respondents: Sandeep Sethi, Amitava Majumdar, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Tripti Sharma, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Abhiesumat Gupta, Kishna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi, Riya Kumar, Ishan Prashar
Anti-arbitration injunctions are granted only in exceptional cases. If a prima facie valid arbitration agreement exists, Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, mandates referral to arbitration, and courts should interpret commercial contracts pragmatically to give effect to the parties' commercial intent.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 9 and 20(c) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 16 and 45 - Anti-arbitration injunctions are an exceptional remedy granted only in the rarest of circumstances where proceedings are shown to be vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable (Paras 77-78). Under Section 45, a judicial authority shall refer parties to arbitration unless it prima facie finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed (Paras 79-81).
(B) Competence-Competence principle - Enshrined in Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction. Civil courts will not interfere with the jurisdictional findings of the tribunal if a prima facie valid arbitration clause exists (Paras 83-84).
(C) Interpretation of commercial contracts - A pragmatic approach is adopted to determine the intention of parties. An arbitration agreement can be culled from correspondence, such as a fixture recap, even if not formally signed in a final contract (Paras 51-55). Terms may be implied to give business efficacy to the transaction, and courts should lean toward validating arbitration agreements to give effect to the parties' intent (Paras 64-73).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing arbitration proceedings before a foreign tribunal. The dispute arose from a voyage charter agreement for shipment of cargo. Plaintiffs contended there was no privity of contract with the defendant and that the final booking note omitted the arbitration clause, despite its presence in the preliminary fixture recap.
Findings of Court:
The court found that it had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose within its limits and plaintiffs were personally amenable. It held that a valid contract existed between the parties as the defendant provided the performing vessel. The court further determined that a valid arbitration agreement existed, viewing the omission in the booking note as a typographical error given the clear intent expressed in the fixture recap.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit; whether there is a binding contract between the parties; whether a valid arbitration clause exists; and whether the impugned arbitration proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or unconscionable.
Ratio Decidendi: Anti-arbitration injunctions are extraordinary reliefs; if a prima facie valid arbitration agreement is found, the statutory mandate under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act necessitates referral to arbitration. The court must interpret commercial contracts pragmatically, looking at the overall matrix of facts and correspondence to determine the intent of the parties, ensuring the contract achieves business efficacy. If the agreement is not void or inoperative, courts should not thwart the chosen adjudicatory process.
Result: The application is dismissed.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 29th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 13th March, 2026 + CS(OS) 868/2025 & I.A. 30141/2025 SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Neelampreet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Mr. Kabir Dev, Mr. Sukhvir Singh and Mr. Sukrit Seth, Advocates (M:9811393402)
versus ARGO CORAL MARITIME LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amitava Majumdar, Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Tripti Sharma, Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Mr. Kishna Gambhir, Ms. Shreya Sethi, Ms. Riya Kumar, Mr. Ishan Prashar, Advocates (M:9811088800)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
I.A. 30141/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT
1. Introduction …………………………………………………......Paras 1-3 2. Factual Matrix ………………………………………………. .........Para 4
2.1 Parties…………………………………………….Paras 4.1-4.2 2.2 Booking Note.………………………………….....Paras 4.3-4.7 2.3 Subsequent Events……………………………....Paras 4.8-4.12 2.4 First Arbitration/Reference………………….....Paras 4.13-4.15 2.5 Second Arbitration/Reference....………………Paras 4.15-4.23
3. Plaintiffs‟ Submissions…………………………………….....Paras 5-5.22 4. Defendant‟s Submissions………………………………….....Paras 6-6.19 5. Findings and Analysis…………………………………….........Paras 7-99
5.1 Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?...……………………………………………………......Paras 12-33 5.2 Whether there is a binding contract between the parties?………………………………………………….…...Paras 34-46 5.3 Whether there exists a valid Arbitration Clause between the parties?……………………………….……………………...Paras 47-75 5.4 Whether the impugned arbitration proceedings are oppressive, vexatious or unconscionable?……………………………….Paras 76-99
6. Conclusion………………………………………………….Paras 100-104 INTRODUCTION:
1. The present suit has been filed seeking a declaration and consequential permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, from continuing with two parallel arbitration proceedings initiated before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (“LMAA/Tribunal”), titled as ‗Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. Versus SARR Freights Ltd.‘ and ‗Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. Versus SARR Freights Corporation‘ (“impugned arbitrations/arbitration proceedings”), arising out of the Booking Note dated 04th April 2023 (“Booking Note”). There is a further prayer seeking declaration of the Partial Final Award dated 18th October, 2025 (“Partial Award”) passed by the majority of the LMAA as null, void and of no legal effect.
2. The present application has been filed seeking an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing, pursuing or taking any steps in the impugned arbitration proceedings before the LMAA.
3. At the outset, this Court notes the submission of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs do not seek interference in relation to the merits of the underlying commercial dispute between the parties, and only seek to address the grievance in relation to the impugned arbitration proceedings. Thus, the present application is being dealt with only in relation to the continuation of the impugned arbitration proceedings.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. The factual matrix in brief is as follows:
Parties
4.1. The plaintiffs, i.e., SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited, are Indian companies, headquartered in New Delhi and are engaged in the business of multimodal logistics, freight forwarding and chartering operations.
4.2. The defendant, i.e., Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., is the owner of the vessel – MV Panthera J, who has initiated the impugned arbitration proceedings against the plaintiffs in London before the LMAA.
Booking Note
4.3. The plaintiffs (SARR Freights) entered into a Charterparty Agreement as charterers with Ocean7 Projects ApS, Denmark, who were acting as agents to the owners of the performing vessel, by way of the Fixture Recap and the Booking Note, both dated 04th A
