Juridical seat and arbitrator disclosure duties shape anti-arbitration relief in ICC arbitration dispute

An arbitration clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to New Delhi courts was read as making New Delhi the juridical seat, because the reference to ICC Rules governed procedure and the later fixation of Singapore as the place of arbitration was treated as venue only. The objection to Indian court jurisdiction therefore failed. A co-arbitrator's prior professional association, coupled with failure to disclose it, was held to create justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality under the continuing disclosure duty in Section 12. The foreign anti-suit injunction did not bar the Indian suit, as the Indian seat court retained supervisory jurisdiction. Anti-arbitration relief was accordingly supported and the arbitral restraint remained in place.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 19 of the Agreement identified New Delhi, India as the juridical seat of arbitration or whether Singapore was the seat by reason of the ICC Court's fixation of the place of arbitration; (ii) Whether the non-disclosure by the co-arbitrator concerning his prior professional association created justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality so as to justify an anti-arbitration injunction.

Issue (i): Whether Article 19 of the Agreement identified New Delhi, India as the juridical seat of arbitration or whether Singapore was the seat by reason of the ICC Court's fixation of the place of arbitration?

Analysis: The arbitration clause was read as a whole and harmoniously. The clause conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at New Delhi, while separately providing that disputes would be arbitrated under ICC Rules and that the place of arbitration was to be mutually agreed. The reference to ICC Rules was treated as governing procedure, not seat. The use of the word "place" in the clause, and the later fixation of Singapore by the ICC Court, was held to be concerned with venue and administrative convenience rather than the juridical seat. The contractual intention, on a prima facie reading, was that the supervisory jurisdiction would remain with Indian courts.

Conclusion: New Delhi, India was held to be the juridical seat, and the fixation of Singapore as the place of arbitration did not displace that seat. The objection to Indian court jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-disclosure by the co-arbitrator concerning his prior professional association created justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality so as to justify an anti-arbitration injunction?

Analysis: Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as imposing a continuing duty of disclosure and as requiring an objective assessment of whether circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts from the standpoint of a fair-minded and informed third party. The prior professional connection was found to fall within the disclosure-sensitive categories under the Fifth Schedule. The arbitrator's failure to disclose, including after becoming aware of the conflict, was treated as a material non-disclosure undermining neutrality. The Court also held that the foreign anti-suit injunction from Singapore did not operate as res judicata in India because the Indian seat court retained supervisory jurisdiction and the foreign forum was not a court of competent jurisdiction for that purpose. On the facts, the arbitral proceedings were viewed as prima facie vexatious and oppressive, and the civil suit was held maintainable.

Conclusion: The non-disclosure was held to create justifiable doubts and supported the grant of anti-arbitration relief. The foreign anti-suit injunction did not bar the suit in India.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to lack merit, and the injunction restraining continuation of the arbitral proceedings was left undisturbed, with the suit to be decided independently on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration clause, read harmoniously, confers exclusive jurisdiction on Indian courts and the arbitral "place" is fixed only administratively, Indian courts may treat India as the seat; a material and continuing failure by an arbitrator to disclose a prior professional connection that gives rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality can justify anti-arbitration injunctive relief, and a foreign anti-suit injunction will not operate as res judicata against the Indian seat court absent competent jurisdiction.

---