Court dismisses anti-arbitration injunction, allowing defendant to proceed with second arbitration.

The court dismissed the application for an anti-arbitration injunction, allowing the defendant (NCCL) to proceed with the second arbitration proceedings. The court emphasized that arbitration agreements remain valid even after the conclusion of arbitration on one set of disputes. It ruled that the second Arbitral Tribunal could address all issues raised by the parties, including those brought before the court. The court highlighted that anti-arbitration injunctions are granted sparingly, particularly when proceedings are deemed vexatious or oppressive.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant (NCCL) could continue with the second arbitration proceedings.
2. Whether the claim for incentive payments by NCCL is barred by principles of res judicata, waiver, and abandonment.
3. Whether the arbitration agreement has become inoperative or incapable of being performed.
4. Whether the second arbitration proceedings are vexatious, time-consuming, and involve unnecessary expenses.
5. Whether the claim for incentive payments is barred by limitation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Continuation of Second Arbitration Proceedings:
The central issue is whether NCCL could continue with the second arbitration proceedings. HSPL and TAQA argue that NCCL should have raised its claim for incentive payments in the first arbitration proceedings. Since NCCL did not do so, they contend that the continuation of the second arbitration is barred by law. The court examined whether the arbitration agreement subsisting between the parties had become inoperative or incapable of being performed.

2. Principles of Res Judicata, Waiver, and Abandonment:
HSPL and TAQA argue that NCCL's claim for incentive payments is barred by principles of res judicata, waiver, and abandonment. They refer to NCCL's conduct before and during the first arbitration proceedings, including pre-arbitration notices and replies, amendments to counterclaims, and specific paragraphs in NCCL's Statement of Defence. The court noted that there was no determination by the first Arbitral Tribunal on the issue of incentive payments, suggesting that this might be a case of constructive res judicata. The court also considered whether the issue at hand concerning incentive payments is a mixed question of fact and law, requiring a trial.

3. Inoperability or Incapability of Arbitration Agreement:
HSPL and TAQA argue that the arbitration agreement has become inoperative or incapable of being performed. They contend that if the doctrine of res judicata applies, then the arbitration agreement is inoperative. The court examined whether the arbitration agreement had been rendered null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. It concluded that a trial would be required to determine this issue, and thus, the arbitration agreement could not be deemed inoperative at this stage.

4. Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings:
HSPL and TAQA argue that NCCL's attempt to initiate second arbitration proceedings is vexatious, time-consuming, and involves unnecessary expenses. The court noted that courts are generally slow in granting anti-arbitration injunctions unless the proceedings are found to be vexatious and/or oppressive. The court considered whether the second arbitration proceedings would require a trial to determine if they are vexatious or oppressive, and concluded that this issue should be addressed by the second Arbitral Tribunal.

5. Limitation of Claim for Incentive Payments:
HSPL and TAQA argue that NCCL's claim for incentive payments is barred by limitation, as the Wet Commissioning Date (WCD) was required to be achieved by 31.3.2013, and TAQA stepped in to take over the project on 5.3.2014. NCCL issued its notice to claim incentive payments only on 28.12.2018. The court considered whether the cause of action for laying a claim for incentive payments could have arisen only after the first Arbitral Tribunal determined the WCD. The court concluded that this issue should be determined by the second Arbitral Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the application for an anti-arbitration injunction and dismissed it. The second Arbitral Tribunal would be free to consider all pleas raised by the parties, including those raised before the court. The court emphasized that arbitration agreements are not extinguished merely because arbitration on one set of disputes has concluded and that the second Arbitral Tribunal could adjudicate on the issues raised. The court also outlined the broad parameters governing anti-arbitration injunctions, emphasizing that courts are slow in granting such injunctions unless the proceedings are vexatious and/or oppressive.

---