Anti-arbitration injunctions require exceptional grounds; parallel proceedings and foreign seat alone do not defeat a valid arbitration agreement.

An anti-arbitration injunction was held to be unavailable merely because the arbitration was foreign-seated or because parallel company-law proceedings were pending. Forum non conveniens was found inapplicable, as it governs competing courts and not a court versus an arbitral tribunal, and the seated arbitration remained the parties' chosen contractual forum. The arbitration agreement was not shown to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, since overlapping oppression and mismanagement proceedings did not defeat the arbitration clause. No waiver or abandonment of the right to arbitrate was established from withdrawal of earlier applications or participation in interim proceedings, so the restraint on arbitration was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens could justify an injunction restraining foreign-seated arbitration; (ii) whether pendency of company-law proceedings rendered the arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; (iii) whether withdrawal of the Section 45 application and the Section 9 proceedings amounted to waiver or abandonment of the arbitration agreement.

Issue (i): whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens could justify an injunction restraining foreign-seated arbitration

Analysis: The doctrine applies where two competent courts have jurisdiction and one court declines to exercise its own jurisdiction in favour of a more convenient court. It does not fit a situation where the dispute is between a civil court and an arbitral tribunal, because an arbitral tribunal is not a court and arbitration is a chosen contractual forum. The mere fact that arbitration is seated abroad does not make the forum inconvenient, and the principles governing anti-suit injunctions cannot be mechanically imported into anti-arbitration relief in view of arbitral autonomy and competence-competence.

Conclusion: Forum non conveniens could not support the anti-arbitration injunction.

Issue (ii): whether pendency of company-law proceedings rendered the arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed

Analysis: In the context of international commercial arbitration, a court may refuse reference only if the arbitration agreement is shown to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Mere pendency of overlapping proceedings, including oppression and mismanagement proceedings, does not render the arbitration clause ineffective. The company petition and the arbitration concerned different subject matters, and the existence of parallel proceedings was not enough to defeat the agreement to arbitrate.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was not shown to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

Issue (iii): whether withdrawal of the Section 45 application and the Section 9 proceedings amounted to waiver or abandonment of the arbitration agreement

Analysis: Withdrawal of the earlier reference application was explained as having become infructuous after termination of the joint venture agreement and commencement of arbitration. Participation in interim proceedings did not amount to surrender of the arbitration clause, especially when the party continued to invoke and pursue arbitration. No conduct was established that amounted to intentional waiver or abandonment of the right to arbitrate.

Conclusion: No waiver or abandonment of the arbitration agreement was established.

Final Conclusion: The injunction against the arbitral proceedings could not be sustained, and the order restraining the appellant from pursuing arbitration was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-arbitration injunction, especially in an international commercial arbitration, can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the arbitration agreement itself is shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, and not merely because parallel proceedings exist or another forum is thought to be more convenient.

---