The dispute between MSA Global LLC and Engineering Projects (India) Ltd has become an unusual example of what arbitration experts describe as a jurisdictional clash between courts at the seat of arbitration and those outside it.
At the center of the conflict is an arbitration seated in Singapore. While proceedings were ongoing, a court in Delhi—despite not being the seat—intervened by issuing an anti-arbitration injunction, seeking to halt the process. Singapore’s courts, asserting their primary supervisory role as the seat jurisdiction, rejected that intervention and responded with an anti-suit injunction aimed at stopping the parallel proceedings in India.
The legal battle intensified when EPIL challenged a partial arbitral award before the Singapore High Court, arguing for its annulment and raising allegations of arbitrator bias. The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient grounds to set aside the award and declining to admit additional bias claims.
Despite that setback, EPIL continued its challenge strategy on multiple fronts, initiating fresh proceedings in Delhi to contest the arbitrator’s position and to restrain MSA from pursuing the arbitration. In response, the Singapore court granted interim relief to prevent the Indian proceedings from undermining the arbitration.
Legal observers say the case highlights the growing tension between national courts when disputes span multiple jurisdictions, particularly where one court attempts to exercise authority outside the agreed arbitral seat. The situation underscores the importance of clearly defined jurisdictional boundaries in international arbitration—and the potential for disruption when those boundaries are contested.
The outcome may have broader implications for how courts coordinate, or clash, in overseeing international arbitration, especially in complex disputes involving parties operating across multiple legal systems.