After Disputed Arbitrator Steps Down, Supreme Court Restores MSA Global–EPIL Arbitration Dispute To Delhi HC

The Supreme Court has held that the primary ground for restraining MSA Global LLC (Oman) from continuing arbitration proceedings against Engineering Projects (India) Limited ceased to exist after arbitral tribunal member Andre Yeap resigned, whose alleged non-disclosure had formed the basis of the anti-arbitration injunction.

Accordingly, setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision dated December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that: 

“It appears to us that since the primary reason for injuncting the appellant from pursuing his anti-arbitration suit seems to have vanished, the validity of the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge can be re-examined by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

The dispute arose from arbitration proceedings between MSA Global LLC (Oman) and Engineering Projects (India) Limited, where concerns were raised regarding the alleged misconduct of Andre Yeap, a member of the arbitral tribunal.

The Delhi High Court's Single Judge, by order dated July 25, 2025, had restrained MSA Global from continuing with arbitration proceedings in an anti-arbitration suit, primarily on the ground that the arbitrator had failed to disclose his prior involvement in a related arbitration concerning the appellant. 

The matter reached the Supreme Court through a civil appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment dated December 12, 2025, which had upheld the injunction.

During the pendency of proceedings, Andre Yeap resigned as arbitrator, as confirmed by a communication dated March 13, 2026, from the International Court of Arbitration placed on record. 

MSA Global argued that the resignation of the arbitrator removed the core concern that had justified the anti-arbitration injunction and warranted a re-examination of the earlier orders. 

Engineering Projects (India) Limited, on the other hand, contended that the defect was not cured by resignation since the arbitrator had already participated in passing an interim award, the enforcement of which was being pursued by MSA Global in Indian courts. 

The Supreme Court, however, found that the disappearance of the primary ground for the injunction fundamentally altered the situation.

It held that the validity of the single judge's order restraining arbitration required reconsideration in light of this subsequent development.

Subsequently, the Court clarified that all issues—including the legal effect of the arbitrator's participation in the interim award and the reasoning adopted by the High Court based on the arbitration agreement—would remain open for adjudication. 

It refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute and directed that the High Court to decide the matter afresh without being influenced by its earlier findings.

For Petitioner (MSA Global LLC): Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Balbir Singh, Kirat Singh Nagra, Kartik Yadav, Pranav Vyas, Sumedha Chadha, Sankalp Singh, Mokshha Sharma, Omar Ahmed, Naman Tandon, M/s D.S.K. Legal (AOR).

For Respondent (Engineering Projects (India) Limited): Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sandeep Sethi, Ajit Warrier, Angad Kochhar, Himanshu Setia, Vedant Kashyap, Riya Kumar, S.S. Shroff (AOR).