Singapore High Court Issues Permanent Anti-Suit Injunction in Response to Indian Proceedings

<center><p><span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd [2025] SGHC 199</span> (9 October 2025)</p></center>

<center><p><span class="news-text_medium">Court:</span> Singapore High Court</p></center>

<center><p><span class="news-text_medium">Date:</span> 9 October 2025</p></center>

‍

The Singapore High Court granted a permanent anti-suit injunction (“<span class="news-text_medium">ASI</span>”) restraining a party from continuing proceedings in the Delhi High Court, which sought an anti-arbitration injunction against a Singapore-seated ICC arbitration. The ruling reinforces the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the seat court and underscores Singapore’s strong pro-arbitration stance under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“<span class="news-text_medium">IAA</span>”).

Background

The dispute arose under a contract containing an ICC arbitration clause but no express provision for the seat of arbitration. The clause included a jurisdiction statement that “the jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India.” The ICC Court, exercising its administrative powers, designated Singapore as the seat of arbitration - a decision accepted by both parties.

During the arbitration, the tribunal issued a partial award in favour of the Claimant, MSA Global LLC. The Respondent, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd, challenged the award before the Singapore High Court, alleging apparent bias by one of the arbitrators. The High Court dismissed the challenge.

In parallel, the Respondent filed proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain continuation of the arbitration with the same arbitrator. Despite an interim ASI issued by the Singapore court, the Respondent proceeded with the Indian litigation and obtained an interim anti-arbitration injunction from the Delhi High Court.

The High Court’s Decision

Justice Andre Maniam granted a permanent ASI preventing the Respondent from pursuing the Delhi Proceedings further. The Court reaffirmed that as Singapore was the designated seat, only Singaporean courts had exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration and related procedural challenges.

The Court made several key findings:

• <span class="news-text_medium">Exclusive jurisdiction of the seat court:</span> Under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the IAA, court intervention in arbitration is limited to prescribed instances such as challenges to arbitrators and awards, all of which fall within the competence of the seat court. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court lacked authority to intervene, even under the guise of addressing alleged unfairness or bias.
• <span class="news-text_medium">Grounds for granting a permanent ASI:</span> The Court held that the Delhi Proceedings constituted a breach of the arbitration agreement and were both vexatious and oppressive. They represented a collateral attack on the Singapore court’s earlier rulings, especially concerning the bias allegations.
• <span class="news-text_medium">Non-preclusion by foreign proceedings:</span> The Singapore court rejected any argument that the Delhi interim injunction limited its jurisdiction or discretion. The Respondent could not rely on its breach of the interim ASI to resist a permanent injunction.

The Court noted that the Respondent had subsequently obtained an ex parte interim injunction in Delhi restraining the Claimant from pursuing contempt proceedings in Singapore, further illustrating the ongoing jurisdictional tension between the two courts.

Significance

This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the supervisory authority of the seat court and a strong endorsement of Singapore’s pro-arbitration policy. It confirms that considerations of international comity will not deter Singaporean courts from restraining foreign proceedings that interfere with Singapore-seated arbitrations.

The decision also provides practical guidance on when permanent ASIs may be warranted, particularly where foreign court actions undermine the arbitration agreement, the tribunal’s authority, or the integrity of the seat court’s oversight.

<span class="news-text_medium">Case Reference:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd [2025] SGHC 199</span> (9 October 2025) (Andre Maniam J)