Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court
Live LawThe Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the potentially prejudicial decree. The bench held that: “Though one, as noted, need actually look no further, the power to grant an anti-suit, or anti-enforcement, injunction, would also be encompassed in the power to grant interim measures of protection as may be “just and convenient”, and would in any case be included in the power to pass orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, conferred by Section 151 of the CPC.” “Where, therefore, proceedings in a foreign Court, or any order or decree passed by a foreign Court, threatens to prejudice or derail the arbitral process which may competently be instituted in India, the Section 9 Court is amply possessed of the power to injunct the party who has instituted the foreign proceedings from further proceeding with them, or from enforcing the potentially threatening order or decree passed therein. In response, the Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from enforcing the Dubai Court's decree. The High Court also noted that the possibility of the Petitioner seeking pre-arbitral interim relief under Section 9 does not preclude any future objections to the Dubai decree's enforceability under Section 13 of the CPC. The High Court held that Sections 13 and 44A of the CPC do not impact the Court's authority to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.