Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Honasa Consumer Limited Vs. RSM General Trading LLC delivered a significant ruling on the scope of the court’s powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar, elucidated the court’s authority to issue anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions to protect the integrity of the arbitral process in India, even when foreign court proceedings or decrees threaten to undermine such arbitration.
Factual Background:
Honasa Consumer Limited (the “Petitioner”) and RSM General Trading LLC (the “Respondent”) entered into an Authorized Distributorship Agreement (ADA), which contained an arbitration clause stipulating that disputes would be resolved under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with New Delhi as the venue. The ADA also included an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts in New Delhi and specifying that Indian law would govern the agreement.
Despite these provisions, the Respondent initiated legal proceedings in Dubai, alleging a breach of the ADA by the Petitioner. The Dubai Court ruled in favour of the Respondent, awarding damages of AED 25,071,991 (approximately Rs. 57,17,65,947). The Respondent acknowledged that this decree effectively rendered the arbitration agreement and other contractual covenants unworkable. In response, the Petitioner sought an injunction from the Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to prevent the Respondent from enforcing the Dubai Court’s decree.
Legal Issues and Arguments:
The central issue before the High Court was whether it had the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the Respondent from continuing with or enforcing the Dubai Court’s decree, which threatened to undermine the agreed-upon arbitral process in India.
The Petitioner’s counsel, argued that the Dubai lawsuit was initiated in bad faith to bypass the arbitration agreement and the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the ADA. He contended that the Respondent’s actions were both oppressive and vexatious, intended to deprive the Petitioner of its right to arbitration. The Respondent’s counsel, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under Section 9, arguing that the provision did not grant the court the power to issue an anti-enforcement injunction against a foreign court’s decree.
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
The High Court rejected the Respondent’s arguments and held that Section 9 of the Arbitration Act grants broad and comprehensive powers to the court to issue interim measures of protection, including anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions. The court emphasized that the power to grant such injunctions is encompassed within the authority to provide interim measures of protection deemed “just and convenient” under Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Act. The High Court further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Essar House Pvt Ltd Vs. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. noted that its jurisdiction under Section 9 is not limited by the procedural constraints of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and is designed to secure the ends of justice.
The court further noted that the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Co. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. also recognized that the court’s power to grant interim relief under Section 9 is traceable to the inherent powers provided by Section 151 of the CPC which allows the court to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court’s process.
The High Court also distinguished between the remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and the provisions of Sections 13 and 44A of the CPC, which deal with the execution of foreign decrees. The court clarified that these remedies operate in different legal contexts and are not mutually exclusive. The court held that the power to grant interim relief under Section 9 includes the authority to issue orders that protect the integrity of the arbitration process from being derailed by foreign court proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Honasa Consumer Limited Vs. RSM General Trading LLC underscores the expansive scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, affirming the court’s authority to issue anti-enforcement injunctions to safeguard the arbitral process in India. This decision reinforces the importance of respecting arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses, ensuring that parties cannot circumvent these contractual provisions through foreign court proceedings. The judgment highlights the court’s role in preventing the abuse of legal processes and upholding the integrity of arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.