India: Indian Courts And Anti-Arbitration Injunctions

Indian Courts are increasingly recognising and implementing the 'minimum interference' doctrine in context of international arbitrations. In the recent Judgment of McDonald's India Private Limited v Vikram Bakshi & Ors [FAO (OS) 9/2015, judgment dated 21 August 2016], the Delhi High Court (Delhi HC) has, inter alia, refused to grant an anti-arbitration injunction in the context of an international commercial arbitration.


Terms of the JVA

The case relates to a dispute between McDonald's India Private Limited (MIPL) and Mr Vikram Bakshi (VB) in connection with their joint venture. The parties had entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) for the purposes of setting up and operating McDonald's restaurants in India. Pursuant to the JVA, the parties incorporated Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited, which was the joint venture company (JVC). By way of a supplemental agreement to the JVA, Bakshi Holdings Private Limited (BHPL) also acceded to the JVA as an original party. The JVA was governed by Indian law and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of New Delhi. It also contained an arbitration clause allowing for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with specific rights under the JVA by arbitration to be administered by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) with proceedings to be held in London.

Clause 32 of the JVA set out the grounds on which MIPL could exercise a call option to purchase all shares held by the other parties to the JVA (JV Counterparties) and Clause 35 of the JVA allowed for termination by a non-defaulting party on the occurrence of an event of default. One such event of default was failure by a party to vote for a managing director (MD) in the manner prescribed under the JVA. The JVA required that VB be appointed as the sole MD of the JVC.

In the year 2013, disputes arose between the parties to the JVA and after the initial term of appointment of VB as the MD expired, he was not re-appointed as the MD of the JVC. This resulted in a default under Clause 35 of the JVA entitling MIPL to exercise its right to terminate the JVA and to exercise its call option to purchase the shareholding of the JV Counterparties in the JVC.

Consequently, MIPL terminated the JVA and exercised the call option requiring the JV Counterparties to sell their shares in the JVC to MIPL.

Proceedings in India

VB challenged the termination of the JVA before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging oppression and mismanagement by MIPL and sought his reinstatement as the MD of the JVC. The CLB, by way of an interim order, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to their shareholding in the JVC. Since the JVA contained an arbitration clause, MIPL filed an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) before the CLB, seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

MIPL thereafter invoked arbitration before LCIA and both VB and BHPL participated in the arbitration proceedings without prejudice to their objection regarding the arbitrability of the disputes in question. MIPL also made an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Delhi HC, seeking reliefs in aid of the arbitration proceedings. The said application was disposed of by the Delhi HC by a consent order dated 2 December 2013, wherein VB and BHPL agreed to maintain status quo with respect to their shareholding in JVC. However, even before the Delhi HC, VB and BHPL explicitly reserved their rights to raise objections regarding arbitrability of the disputes before the arbitral tribunal.

The application made under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act before the CLB by MIPL was subsequently withdrawn since the JVA was terminated and a separate arbitral reference had commenced. VB approached the CLB seeking stay of the arbitral proceedings, which was declined.

Suit before the Delhi HC

Four months after participating in the LCIA proceedings and nominating its arbitrator, VB filed a civil suit before the Delhi HC (Civil Suit), inter alia, seeking an injunction to stay the LCIA arbitration proceedings. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted the anti-arbitration injunction restraining MIPL from pursuing arbitration until the Civil Suit is disposed of or the status quo order of the CLB is vacated.

MIPL appealed against the said order of the learned single Judge before a Division Bench of the Delhi HC.


The Division Bench while deciding whether to grant such an anti-arbitration injunction held as follows:

  1. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens can only be invoked where the court deciding not to exercise jurisdiction had such jurisdiction in the first place. This is essentially a principle of common law which the Delhi HC found had no application in the instant case. The conflict herein was not between two courts but between a court and an arbitral tribunal. Secondly, the subject matter of the proceedings before the CLB wasin connection with oppression and mismanagement, whereas the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal related to the rights of the parties under the JVA. Further, the Delhi HC also held that an alternative forum chosen by the parties cannot be considered to be inconvenient.
  2. The underlying rationale and principles governing the grant of an injunction against arbitral proceedings set out under the erstwhile Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be applied to cases under the present Arbitration Act. The Delhi HC noted that under the present Arbitration Act, there has been a shift towards directing the parties to arbitration rather than having the courts decide the same subject matter by way of a civil suit.
  3. Principles governing anti-suit injunctions cannot be applied while deciding whether to grant anti-arbitration injunctions due to the applicability of principles of party autonomy and kompetenz-kompetenz to arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the Delhi HC, in essence, held that a higher threshold would be applicable for the grant of anti-arbitration injunctions. The Delhi HC cited with approval the reasoning in Excalibur Venture LLC v Texas Keystone Inc. & Others [2011 EWHC 1624 (Comm)] holding that in the case of foreign-seated arbitrations, it is only in exceptional cases such as where the continuation of such proceedings may be oppressive or unconscionable that a court may grant an anti-arbitration injunction. Such a scenario would arise where the main issue is whether or not the parties consented to a foreign arbitration or where there is an allegation that the arbitration agreement is forged. The Delhi HC observed that none of these issues arose in the present case.
  4. The courts are duty bound to refer the disputes to arbitration in cases of international arbitration covered by the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (New York Convention) unless the parties can satisfy the court that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. This rule will equally apply to requests for grant of anti-arbitration injunctions in respect of such arbitrations. In fact, the Delhi HC went so far as to agree with the English courts' approach in this respect and hold that despite the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, courts in India would retain the jurisdiction to determine whether an arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. 
  5. The expression 'null and void' would mean where the arbitration agreement is affected by some invalidity right from the beginning, such as lack of consent due to misrepresentation, duress, fraud or undue influence.
  6. The term 'inoperative' covers those cases where the arbitration agreement has ceased to have effect, such as a case of revocation by the parties. Another instance of the agreement having become inoperative is where it ceases to have effect because an arbitral award has already been made or there is a court decision which effectively operates as res judicata.
  7. In cases of international commercial arbitrations to which the New York Convention applies, the mere fact that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation need to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal will not make the arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. 
  8. The Delhi HC observed that the mere existence of the multiple proceedings, i.e. proceedings before the CLB and those before the arbitral tribunal, in the instant case, is not sufficient to render the arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed.
  9. The Delhi HC in the instant case did not rule on the applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act to the instant arbitration agreement. However, it observed that even if Part I of the Arbitration Act were to apply, the court is bound to refer the parties, or anyone claiming through or under the party to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. 


Although the Delhi HC clarified that the approach of courts should be to minimise interference with arbitration since it is the forum of choice of parties, it did not enter into a detailed analysis of the degree of scrutiny which may be undertaken by courts in India to determine whether or not an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

However, the Supreme Court of India in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., [(2013) 1 SCC 641] had clearly held that the court adjudicating an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act has to conclusively rule on the exceptions carved out under the said provision and that such a finding attains finality inter se parties and cannot be re-opened, even before the arbitral tribunal itself.

The Division Bench of the Delhi HC, in the instant case, has rightly tested the arbitration agreement against the three exceptions under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act viz. whether the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, and concluded that none of the aforementioned exceptions is met to merit granting an anti-arbitration injunction.

It is interesting to note that given the present proceedings were commenced under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the appellant could have argued that the Delhi HC ought to have decided the challenge to the impugned order of the learned single Judge on the tests prescribed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC itself and not as an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the Delhi HC should have formed a view only on the prima facie study of facts and circumstances of the present case and should have left it to the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

By way of this decision, the Delhi HC has clearly laid down the criteria to objectively determine if the challenge to an international arbitration proceeding to which the New York Convention applies, is covered by any of the three exceptions listed in Section 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
Nishith Desai Associates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
Nishith Desai Associates
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions