- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
An anti-arbitration injunction is a legal order issued to prevent a party from initiating or continuing arbitration proceedings, typically when one party tries to initiate arbitration in a forum other than the one agreed upon in the contract, or disputes the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Under Indian law, the issue of granting an anti-arbitration injunction is complex and involves balancing the rights of the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration as agreed and the jurisdictional authority of courts.
Under Indian law, the issue of granting anti-arbitration injunctions is not explicitly addressed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), but Indian courts have considered the matter in a few significant judgments. Generally, Indian courts are reluctant to issue anti-arbitration injunctions because of the strong public policy in favor of arbitration.
Indian courts uphold arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution, especially when there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Therefore, courts are hesitant to interfere with the initiation of arbitration proceedings, as it is believed to undermine the autonomy of the parties and the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (the tribunal's power to decide its own jurisdiction).
Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restricts judicial intervention in arbitration matters. The provision states that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force, no judicial authority shall interfere in matters governed by this part, except where so provided in this Act. This principle supports minimal interference by courts, making it difficult for courts to issue an anti-arbitration injunction, as doing so would be seen as judicial interference.
As per Section 5, the Indian approach is to allow the arbitration process to proceed unless there are exceptional circumstances that would justify judicial intervention.
Courts in India have been clear that where a valid arbitration agreement exists, they will usually not allow parties to bypass arbitration by seeking to litigate in court, especially where an arbitration clause is part of the agreement. However, Indian courts can intervene if a party challenges the existence, validity, or scope of the arbitration agreement itself.
Although Indian courts tend to avoid issuing anti-arbitration injunctions, they will not hesitate to stop proceedings in a forum that has no jurisdiction under the agreement. Courts may issue orders to stop litigation if it is in direct conflict with an existing arbitration agreement, but such orders are more likely to be issued in relation to court proceedings rather than arbitration itself.
The kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine is a fundamental principle in Indian arbitration law, which provides that the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction. This means that the tribunal can decide whether it has the authority to hear the dispute, including whether the arbitration agreement is valid or whether the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement.
According to this principle, the courts in India are typically reluctant to intervene and stop arbitration proceedings because it is up to the tribunal to first determine if it has jurisdiction over the dispute. The courts will only intervene if the tribunal exceeds its powers or fails to enforce the arbitration agreement.
While Indian courts rarely issue anti-arbitration injunctions, they have considered instances where a party tried to avoid arbitration by resorting to litigation in a court. One of the landmark judgments is the Balco case (Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc., 2012), where the Supreme Court of India laid down important principles related to international commercial arbitration. The judgment emphasized the primacy of the arbitration agreement and the role of arbitral tribunals in determining disputes.
In the ONGC v. Saw Pipes (2003) case, the Supreme Court held that if a party files a suit in a jurisdictional court in breach of an arbitration agreement, courts may take action to enforce the arbitration agreement. However, this does not necessarily extend to granting an anti-arbitration injunction to prevent the commencement of arbitration.
Indian courts may refuse to issue an anti-arbitration injunction if such an order goes against public policy. This may arise when the enforcement of an arbitration agreement in one jurisdiction is seen as contrary to the public policy of India or when the court determines that the arbitration agreement is inoperative, invalid, or cannot be performed due to legal constraints in India.
Courts may also intervene in matters where the dispute involves fundamental issues of Indian public law or international norms that contradict the principles of arbitration.
Even though Indian courts are hesitant to grant anti-arbitration injunctions, they have the authority to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute, protect assets, or prevent any actions that might render the arbitration award ineffectual. However, this relief is different from an anti-arbitration injunction, as it does not prevent the commencement or continuation of arbitration but rather preserves the status quo.
Suppose Company A and Company B have an agreement that mandates disputes will be resolved via arbitration in Singapore. However, Company A files a lawsuit in an Indian court, seeking to litigate the dispute instead of pursuing arbitration. Company B wishes to prevent the court proceedings and seeks an anti-arbitration injunction to stop the litigation and enforce the arbitration agreement.
Company B can file a petition in the Indian court requesting a stay of the court proceedings under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates the referral of disputes to arbitration when a valid arbitration agreement exists.
The Indian court will likely refrain from issuing an anti-arbitration injunction. Instead, it will direct the matter to arbitration if it determines that the arbitration agreement is valid. The court will likely avoid issuing an injunction that directly stops arbitration but may issue a stay on court proceedings if the matter is already subject to arbitration.
While anti-arbitration injunctions are not explicitly recognized or commonly granted under Indian law, courts generally favor arbitration and will prevent court proceedings if they are in conflict with a valid arbitration agreement. Indian courts are reluctant to directly interfere with the commencement or continuation of arbitration proceedings. However, in cases where a party seeks to avoid arbitration by litigating in court, Indian courts can intervene by staying the litigation and enforcing the arbitration agreement. Courts will typically uphold the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, allowing the arbitral tribunal to determine its jurisdiction over the dispute.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
