Party autonomy in arbitration prevails: anti-arbitration restraint was lifted, and challenges to the agreement failed on prima facie grounds.

Party autonomy in arbitration was upheld where the contract incorporated FOSFA Rules, English law and England as the juridical seat. An anti-arbitration injunction should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, so it could not be continued once the agreed arbitral forum was clear. Objections that the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of performance were not supported by sufficient prima facie material, and issues such as non-supply of the form, unconscionability, neutrality and arbitrator bias were treated as matters for the arbitral tribunal or the courts of the seat. The dispute was left to the agreed arbitral framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an anti-arbitration injunction should continue when the parties had agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration under FOSFA Rules with English law as the governing and curial law. (ii) Whether the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed so as to justify interference under the principles governing Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether an anti-arbitration injunction should continue when the parties had agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration under FOSFA Rules with English law as the governing and curial law.

Analysis: The contractual documents and the incorporated FOSFA rules required disputes to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the FOSFA regime, with England as the juridical seat and English law governing construction and performance. The Court held that, where parties have chosen their forum and arbitral framework, interference by way of anti-arbitration injunction is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. The contractual arrangement showed a clear intention to submit disputes to arbitration, and the Indian court was not the chosen forum for adjudication of the substantive dispute.

Conclusion: The anti-arbitration injunction could not be continued and stood vacated in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed so as to justify interference under the principles governing Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The objections relating to alleged non-supply of FOSFA Form 54, unconscionability of the termination clause, alleged lack of neutrality of FOSFA, and alleged bias of arbitrators were found to be unsupported by sufficient prima facie material. The Court treated the arbitration agreement as separable from the remaining contractual terms and applied the principle that such objections should ordinarily be pursued before the arbitral tribunal or the courts of the seat. The Court also noted that the remedies and safeguards available under the English Arbitration Act preserved procedural fairness and provided avenues for challenge.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was not shown to be null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, and the applications under Section 45 were maintainable and succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The contractual dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration was upheld, the anti-arbitration restraint was lifted, leave was revoked, and the matter was left to the agreed arbitral framework and the courts of the seat.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-arbitration injunction will not be granted, and Section 45 relief will not be refused, unless the arbitration agreement is shown on a strong prima facie basis to be null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed; contractual choice of forum, governing law, and arbitral seat must ordinarily be respected.

---