<center><span class="news-text_italic-underline">MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd, Delhi High Court, OMP(EFA)(COMM) 4/2025</span> — Singh J, 17 April 2026</center>
Disputes between the parties were referred to ICC arbitration seated in Singapore. The claimant (“<span class="news-text_medium">MSA</span>”) nominated its arbitrator (“<span class="news-text_medium">Y</span>”), who signed a statement of impartiality and independence declaring that he had "nothing to disclose." On 19 June 2024, the tribunal rendered a unanimous first partial award directing the respondent (“<span class="news-text_medium">EPIL</span>”) to make payments to MSA.
In January 2025, EPIL discovered that Y had previously acted as arbitrator in proceedings involving MSA's chairman and promoter. Y admitted that he had become aware of this connection in October 2024 but had consciously chosen not to disclose it, fearing that disclosure might invite a challenge to his impartiality. EPIL's challenge against Y was rejected by both the ICC Court and the Singapore High Court. MSA subsequently sought enforcement of the award before the Delhi High Court, which EPIL resisted under section 48 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">ACA 1996</span>”).
The Delhi High Court dismissed MSA's enforcement petition and upheld EPIL's objections. The Court first clarified that an enforcement court exercises a distinct, limited but independent jurisdiction, which is not circumscribed by the findings of the curial court. Since the objections raised a violation of Indian public policy, a ground not considered by the curial court, the enforcement court was not constrained by the curial court's earlier findings.
The Court held that, whilst section 12 ACA 1996 does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations, the principles of impartiality and continuous disclosure form part of Indian public policy and the duty of disclosure under the ICC Rules is itself autonomous and non-derogable. The Court rejected MSA's argument that, because the award was unanimous, it could not be tainted by bias. It observed that even a single tainted member vitiates the integrity of the entire arbitral process.
Y's deliberate non-disclosure went well beyond a mere procedural irregularity; it amounted to a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law and the most basic notions of justice and morality. Whilst the public policy ground of bias should not be invoked routinely to resist enforcement, refusal is warranted where the arbitral process has been vitiated by an infraction of that character.
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation that Indian enforcement courts retain an independent power to scrutinise foreign awards by reference to Indian public policy, operating separately from and unbound by any curial court determination. It signals a rigorous approach to arbitrator disclosure obligations and serves as a clear reminder that deliberate non-disclosure, whatever its motivation, risks undermining the enforceability of an award entirely. Parties and arbitrators alike should treat continuous disclosure obligations as non-negotiable throughout the life of the proceedings, not merely at the point of appointment.
