Madras High Court bars second arbitration after finding landowners waived arbitration by pursuing the same dispute in civil court

The parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 9 May 2013 and a Supplemental Agreement dated 27 June 2014 concerning the sale of land.

Disputes under those agreements resulted in an arbitral award dated 29 May 2019, which ultimately attained finality after the award debtors’ challenge and subsequent proceedings were unsuccessful.

In execution of the award, the award holder obtained an attachment order. The award debtors then filed a civil suit seeking injunctive relief; further proceedings in that suit were stayed in a civil revision petition.

After issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award debtors sought an injunction preventing alienation of property (O.A. No. 333 of 2026). The award holder sought an anti-arbitration injunction restraining them from commencing a second arbitration under the same agreements (O.A. No. 334 of 2026).

1. Whether the award debtors could obtain an injunction against alienation of the relevant property through a fresh Section 9 application, after having sought similar relief in a civil suit concerning the same agreements.

2. Whether the award holder was entitled to an anti-arbitration injunction restraining the award debtors from commencing fresh arbitral proceedings under the same agreements pursuant to the Section 21 notice dated 28 March 2026.

The Court considered Sections 9 and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9 permits a party to seek interim measures from a court in connection with arbitral proceedings, while Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings by a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Court applied the principles that a party should not pursue the same dispute and relief through successive proceedings so as to abuse the process of court, and that resort to civil-court proceedings for relief arising from an agreement may, in the circumstances of a case, indicate waiver of the right to invoke that agreement’s arbitration clause. No precedent was cited in the order.

The Court viewed the civil suit and the later Section 9 application as seeking substantially the same injunctive relief in respect of disputes arising from the same agreements.

It considered the timing of the fresh Section 21 notice—after the civil suit had been stayed and while the award holder was pursuing execution—to support the conclusion that the renewed proceedings were an attempt to thwart enforcement of the final award.

Because the award debtors had already approached the civil court for relief under the agreements, the Court held that they could not pursue the same dispute afresh through arbitration; their conduct indicated waiver of the right to invoke the arbitration clause.

It restrained the award debtors from commencing fresh arbitral proceedings in respect of the 9 May 2013 MOU and the 27 June 2014 Supplemental Agreement pursuant to the Section 21 notice dated 28 March 2026. No order as to costs was made.