Anti-Arbitration Injunctions By Indian Courts
1. Meaning of Anti-Arbitration Injunction
An anti-arbitration injunction is an order by a court restraining a party from commencing or continuing arbitral proceedings.
Such injunctions are considered exceptional because they:
Undermine party autonomy
Conflict with the kompetenz-kompetenz principle
Risk violating international comity (for foreign arbitrations)
Indian courts treat anti-arbitration injunctions as drastic and rare remedies.
2. Statutory Framework in India
2.1 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Act does not expressly provide for anti-arbitration injunctions.
However, courts derive limited power from:
Section 9 (interim measures)
Section 45 (reference to arbitration in foreign agreements)
Civil Procedure Code principles (inherent powers)
2.2 Fundamental Doctrines Restricting Injunctions
Section 5 – Minimal judicial intervention
Section 16 – Tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction
Pro-enforcement bias under the Act
3. Indian Judicial Approach
Indian courts consistently hold that:
Courts must not pre-empt the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction except in rare and compelling circumstances.
Anti-arbitration injunctions are not a matter of right, even where hardship is shown.
4. Grounds Where Anti-Arbitration Injunctions May Be Granted
Courts have recognised limited circumstances, including:
4.1 No Valid Arbitration Agreement
Forged, void, or non-existent agreement
Non-signatory compelled without legal basis
4.2 Disputes Clearly Non-Arbitrable
Insolvency, winding-up
Criminal offences
Testamentary disputes
4.3 Oppression or Vexatious Arbitration
Abuse of arbitral process
Arbitration commenced to harass or coerce
4.4 Fraud Going to the Root of the Agreement
Fraud vitiating arbitration clause itself (not merely contract)
5. Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Arbitrations
Indian courts are even more reluctant where:
Arbitration is seated outside India
Foreign tribunal has been constituted
Institutional rules govern the proceedings
Courts respect:
Seat court’s supervisory role
International comity
6. Anti-Arbitration vs Anti-Suit Injunction
| Aspect | Anti-Suit | Anti-Arbitration |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Restrains court proceedings | Restrains arbitration |
| Judicial tolerance | Limited | Extremely narrow |
| Impact on party autonomy | Moderate | Severe |
7. Key Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. v. Bajranglal Agarwal
Issue: Whether civil court can stop arbitration
Held: Civil courts should not interfere; tribunal must decide jurisdiction
Significance: First strong rejection of anti-arbitration injunctions
2. SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.
Issue: Judicial role in arbitration process
Held: Courts must respect kompetenz-kompetenz
Significance: Reinforced tribunal primacy
3. World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. MSM Satellite
Issue: Injunction against foreign arbitration
Held: Indian courts should not restrain foreign arbitrations
Significance: Emphasised international comity
4. McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi
Issue: Parallel arbitration and oppression claims
Held: Injunction granted due to oppressive and abusive arbitration
Significance: Example of rare intervention
5. Chatterjee Petrochem Co. v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.
Issue: Non-arbitrable disputes and shareholder oppression
Held: Arbitration restrained where statutory remedies dominated
Significance: Limits of arbitrability
6. Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi
Issue: Competing arbitration agreements
Held: Anti-arbitration injunction granted to prevent abuse
Significance: Protection against parallel arbitrations
7. Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh
Issue: Arbitration without valid consent
Held: Injunction permissible where no arbitration agreement exists
Significance: Consent as foundation of arbitration
8. Interaction with Section 45 (Foreign Arbitration)
Under Section 45:
Courts must refer parties to arbitration unless agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed
This threshold mirrors the anti-arbitration injunction test
9. Practical Implications for Corporates
Indian courts will not restrain arbitration merely because:
Claim lacks merit
Proceedings are costly
Parallel proceedings exist
High threshold requires:
Clear lack of jurisdiction
Abuse of process
Non-arbitrable subject matter
10. Strategic Considerations
Seek injunction only when:
Arbitration clause is demonstrably void
Proceedings are oppressive or fraudulent
Avoid injunction when:
Jurisdictional objection can be raised before tribunal
Foreign seat governs arbitration
11. Conclusion
Indian courts have evolved a strong anti-injunction stance, holding that:
Anti-arbitration injunctions are exceptional
Tribunals must decide their own jurisdiction
Foreign arbitrations enjoy greater protection
Courts act as gatekeepers against abuse, not supervisors of arbitration.
RELATED Blog
comments