Anti-arbitration injunctions require proof of exceptional circumstances or invalidity under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The Plaintiffs (Indian logistics companies) entered into a voyage charter via a Fixture Recap and Booking Note dated April 4, 2023, for transporting military cargo to Sudan

On April 18, 2023, the UN declared Sudan ports unsafe due to war, leading the Plaintiffs to cancel the booking under force majeure

The Defendant (vessel owner) claimed "dead freight" damages and initiated two parallel arbitrations before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), first against Plaintiff No. 2 and later against Plaintiff No. 1

An LMAA Partial Final Award on October 18, 2025, affirmed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by rectifying a typographical error in the Booking Note to include an arbitration clause

The Plaintiffs approached the Delhi High Court seeking an anti-arbitration injunction, alleging the proceedings were oppressive and that no valid arbitration agreement existed with the Defendant

The Court applied Section 9 of the CPC, which grants Civil Courts plenary jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred

It relied on World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) PTE Ltd., establishing that Indian courts can exercise residual equitable powers to restrain foreign arbitrations if they are "null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed" per Section 45 of the Arbitration Act

On contract interpretation, the Court applied the "Business Efficacy Test" from Nabha Power Ltd. v. PSPCL

the principle from Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus, stating that arbitration agreements can be inferred from correspondence (like Fixture Recaps) even if not signed, provided the parties are ad idem

The doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (Section 16 of the Arbitration Act) was emphasized to limit judicial interference

The Court first affirmed its jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC, noting that while the seat was London, the cargo originated from Delhi, payments were made in Delhi, and the Plaintiffs were personally amenable to the court's jurisdiction

On the merits of the injunction, the Court found a prima facie valid contract; although the Booking Note named a different vessel, Clause 20 allowed for substitution, and the Fixture Recap—which the Plaintiffs had accepted—explicitly named the Defendant’s vessel

Regarding the missing arbitration clause in the "Special Terms" of the Booking Note, the Court ruled this was a classic "typographical oversight"

Since the Fixture Recap unequivocally included a London arbitration clause and the Plaintiffs signed the page in the Booking Note containing the full arbitration text (Clause 43), the Court applied the business efficacy rule to hold that rational businessmen would not leave a multi-million dollar international contract without a dispute resolution mechanism

Finally, the Court held that parallel proceedings were not "oppressive" as they arose from the Plaintiffs' own ambiguity regarding which entity was the true "Merchant," and the Defendant had since abandoned the first reference

It held that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the high threshold of proving the arbitration was "null, void, or inoperative" under Section 45

The Court concluded that prima facie a valid arbitration agreement existed via the Fixture Recap and the signed Booking Note

The LMAA proceedings were found neither vexatious nor oppressive, and the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz mandated that the Tribunal should rule on its own jurisdiction

The suit was listed for further procedural steps on April 1, 2026