The Delhi High Court recently restrained Oman-based MSA Global LLC from prosecuting a contempt of court case it had filed before the Singapore High Court against an Indian public sector undertaking named Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL) [Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPI) Vs MSA Global LLC].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav reasoned that the a Division Bench of the High Court is already considering a related case between the two parties and the the continuation of contempt proceedings in Singapore could lead to parallel court proceedings.
“Continuance of contempt proceedings before Singapore High Court would not only cause grave prejudice but also seriously hamper the bona fides of the plaintiff (EPIL) as the latter would be burdened with parallel international proceedings whose foundation itself is subject to ongoing scrutiny and review within the appellate jurisdiction,” the Court held.
The September 18 order added that if the contempt case in Singapore continues, it could lead to conflicting outcomes, judicial uncertainty and unnecessary multiplicity of court proceedings.
"Allowing contempt proceedings to continue in this context could also frustrate core principles of judicial comity of Courts and judicial restraint, and as it would prematurely penalize actions that may ultimately be vindicated, modified or upheld based on the Appellate Court’s findings, a forum which the defendant willingly chooses to pursue," the Court further observed, while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of EPIL.
The dispute stems from a 2015 subcontract between EPIL and MSA Global for a Border Security Project that was referred to ICC arbitration in Singapore when disputes arose.
EPIL raised concerns about the impartiality of an arbitrator nominated by MSA Global, alleging deliberate non-disclosure of prior appointments. In April 2025, EPI filed suit [CS(OS) 243/2025] in Delhi seeking an anti-arbitration injunction, which the Court granted on July 25, 2025, on finding the arbitration proceedings to be vexatious and oppressive.
Meanwhile, MSA Global successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction from Singapore courts on August 15, 2025, and subsequently initiated contempt proceedings against EPI for continuing with the Indian litigation.
EPIL then urged the Delhi High Court to declare that the contempt action in Singapore was vexatious and an abuse of process. It also asked the Court to hold that the Singapore judgment granting an anti-suit injunction was not binding or enforceable in India.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for EPIL, argued that participation in proceedings before Indian courts cannot amount to contempt abroad. He submitted that MSA Global’s strategy was mala fide and aimed at prejudicing a public sector undertaking with global operations.
Sethi stressed that since the Delhi High Court had already stayed the arbitration and that order is now under appellate review, contempt proceedings in Singapore would unfairly penalise EPIL before the Indian courts have concluded their scrutiny.
Justice Kaurav accepted this submission and underscored that contempt abroad cannot proceed when the underlying injunction is subject to appeal in India.
“Proceeding with contempt before the Singapore High Court risks conflicting outcomes, judicial uncertainty, and unnecessary multiplicity … it could prematurely penalize actions that may ultimately be vindicated, modified or upheld based on the Appellate Court’s findings,” the Court said.
The Court emphasised that allowing such proceedings would prejudice EPIL by forcing it into duplicative litigation while its rights remain under review in India.
Applying the established test for interim injunctions, the Court found that EPIL had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured them, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if contempt proceedings abroad were allowed to continue.
The Court, therefore, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining MSA Global, its officers, directors and representatives from continuing or participating in the contempt proceedings before the Singapore High Court.
The order will remain in force until the next hearing in October. The Court also clarified that MSA Global would be at liberty to move for modification or vacation of the injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Sethi was briefed by Advocates Ajit Warrier, Angad Kochhar, Himanshu Setia, Vedant Kashyap, Sumer Dev Seth, Riya Kumar and Richa Khare.
[Read Order]