India’s Courts and Anti-Arbitration Injunctions: How Landmark Judgments Are Shaping Arbitration Law

India’s Courts and Anti-Arbitration Injunctions: How Landmark Judgments Are Shaping Arbitration Law

From McDonald’s to MSA Global: Indian courts balance arbitration freedom with judicial safeguards

Supreme Court and High Courts clarify when injunctions can stop arbitration proceedings

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: December 16, 2025:

India’s arbitration landscape has seen dramatic shifts over the past two decades. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, aims to minimize judicial interference, courts have repeatedly been asked to decide whether they can stop arbitration proceedings through anti-arbitration injunctions. These injunctions are granted when arbitration is considered vexatious, oppressive, or inequitable.

Also Read: 80-Year-Old Wins Realty Case After 62 Years: Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Land at 1963 Rate

Recent rulings, including the Delhi High Court’s decision in MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited (2025), have reignited debate on the scope of judicial intervention. To understand this evolving legal landscape, it is important to revisit key judgments that have shaped the doctrine.

Key Judgments Shaping Anti-Arbitration Jurisprudence

1. MSA Global LLC (Oman) v. Engineering Projects (India) Limited (Delhi High Court, 2025)
   • The Division Bench upheld an anti-arbitration injunction against a foreign-seated arbitration.
   • The court clarified that while arbitral tribunals enjoy the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (power to decide their own jurisdiction), Indian civil courts retain jurisdiction to intervene if proceedings are abusive or unfair.
2. McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi & Ors (Delhi High Court, 2016)
   • The Delhi High Court initially restrained arbitration seated in London under the LCIA.
   • Later, the injunction was set aside, with the court emphasizing that arbitration agreements must be respected and multiple proceedings alone do not make arbitration “inconvenient”.
3. Chatterjee Petrochem Co. & Anr v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd (Supreme Court, 2013)
   • The Supreme Court dealt with disputes arising from agreements involving the West Bengal government and Haldia Petrochemicals.
   • It refused to grant an anti-arbitration injunction, reinforcing the sanctity of arbitration clauses under ICC Rules in Paris.
4. World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd (Supreme Court, 2014)
   • This case involved media rights for the Indian Premier League (IPL).
   • The Supreme Court overturned a Bombay High Court injunction and referred the matter to arbitration in Singapore.
   • The ruling strongly upheld kompetenz-kompetenz, stating that even allegations of fraud should first be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Flags AI-Generated Petitions in Cyber Fraud Cases, Orders Mandatory SHO Involvement

The Legal Principles at Play

• Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Arbitral tribunals decide their own jurisdiction.
• Minimal Judicial Intervention: Courts should not interfere unless proceedings are oppressive.
• Safeguard Against Abuse: Courts retain inherent powers to prevent misuse of arbitration agreements.

Indian courts have oscillated between respecting arbitration agreements and stepping in to protect parties from unfair proceedings.

Why These Judgments Matter

• Global Confidence in India’s Arbitration Regime:
  Cases like World Sport Group and Chatterjee Petrochem show India’s judiciary aligning with international standards.
• Domestic Safeguards:
  The MSA Global ruling demonstrates that courts will not hesitate to protect Indian parties from foreign-seated arbitrations if they are oppressive.
• Investor Sentiment:
  The McDonald’s case highlighted concerns about judicial overreach but also showed corrective action when the injunction was set aside.

Current Trends

Also Read: SEBI Cracks Down on Insider Trading: Laws, Consequences, and Market Impact

• Courts are narrowing the scope of anti-arbitration injunctions.
• The Delhi High Court’s 2025 ruling signals that intervention will only be allowed in exceptional cases.
• The Supreme Court continues to emphasize arbitration as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

Conclusion

India’s arbitration jurisprudence is evolving towards a balanced approach. While courts respect the autonomy of arbitral tribunals, they retain the power to intervene when proceedings are abusive. The judgments in MSA Global, McDonald’s, Chatterjee Petrochem, and World Sport Group collectively show how Indian courts are striking a delicate balance between global arbitration norms and domestic safeguards.

This evolving landscape will determine whether India can truly become a global arbitration hub while protecting the interests of its domestic parties.

🔑 Keywords for SEO & Faster Searches

• Anti-arbitration injunctions India
• Delhi High Court arbitration rulings
• MSA Global v Engineering Projects India
• McDonald’s arbitration case Delhi High Court
• Chatterjee Petrochem v Haldia Petrochem Supreme Court
• World Sport Group v MSM Supreme Court
• Kompetenz-kompetenz principal India
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 India
• Judicial intervention in arbitration India
• Foreign-seated arbitration India

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Grants Relief to Vodafone West: Roaming Charges Disallowance Deleted