Andre Yeap’s non-disclosure of conflict in MSA Global dispute vitiates arbitral award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to enforce a foreign arbitral award on the ground that arbitrator and Senior Counsel Andre Yeap failure to disclose his prior professional engagement by one of the parties violated the most basic notions of justice [MSA Global Vs Engineering Projects]..Yeap, one of the three arbitrators in the arbitral tribunal, had failed to disclose a prior professional engagement involving Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, the promoter of MSA Global LLC (Oman) which was one of the parties to the dispute.Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the non-disclosure deprived Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL) the opportunity to assess the arbitrator’s independence and challenge the tribunal’s composition at the appropriate stage.“By withholding such information, the Arbitrator effectively deprived the Judgment Debtor of the opportunity to assess the circumstances and to raise a timely challenge… Consequently, such a defect… amounts to a violation of the most basic notions of justice and morality,” the Court said.By choosing to hide the conflict of interest to preserve his appointment, Yeap undermined the trust that forms the foundation of the arbitral process, the Court ruled."The legitimacy of the arbitral process rests not merely on actual impartiality, but equally on the perception of impartiality, and it is this perception that the duty of disclosure is designed to safeguard."Further, the Court also rejected the argument that Yeap was only one of the three arbitrators who was part of the arbitral tribunal and that the arbitral award was unanimous. Participation of even one biased arbitrator vitiates the arbitral proceedings, Justice Singh held..The dispute began with a sub-contract dated September 21, 2015, where MSA Global was tasked by EPIL to design and install an electronic surveillance system for a border project between Oman and Yemen. After delays in the project led to significant operational costs, MSA Global invoked ICC arbitration in April 2023 and nominated Andre Yeap as its co-arbitrator. On his statement of acceptance, Yeap declared he had "nothing to disclose" regarding any circumstances that could call into question his independence or impartiality.The arbitral tribunal delivered a partial award in June 2024, directing EPIL to make specific payments to MSA Global. However, in January 2025, EPIL discovered through a separate court judgment that Yeap had previously served as an arbitrator for the chairman and promoter of MSA Global, Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, in a case roughly four years prior. During the subsequent challenge, Yeap admitted he realised this connection in October 2024 but chose not to disclose it because he feared it would invite a challenge to his impartiality from EPIL.The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Court) permitted continuation of the proceedings despite finding Yeap's non-disclosure to be regrettable.MSA Global moved the Delhi High Court to enforce the arbitral award.Meanwhile, EPIL moved the Delhi High Court challenging the continuation of proceedings citing Yeap's non-disclsoure. The High Court in 2025 restrained the arbitration from proceeding further, holding that the circumstances warranted judicial intervention.The case reached Supreme Court, where the judges criticised Yeap's conduct. Subsequently, Yeap resigned from the tribunal.The Supreme Court took note of Yeap's resignation and asked the Delhi High Court to reconsider the validity of the interim award passed by the arbitral tribunal..The High Court then proceeded to deliver judgment on MSA Global's plea seeking enforcement of the award..It said that the duty to disclose potential conflicts is "autonomous and non-derogable". Andre Yeap admittedly withheld information about his prior professional relationship with Manbhupinder Singh Atwal to avoid a challenge. The Court held that an arbitrator cannot unilaterally decide if a relationship is "trivial" enough to keep secret; full disclosure is mandatory to allow parties to make their own informed assessment, the judge ruled."The statutory scheme does not permit the Arbitrator to assume the role of a judge in his own cause by determining whether a particular fact warrants disclosure," the judgment said..The Court clarified that the participation of even one biased or non-disclosing arbitrator vitiates the integrity of the entire proceedings. It rejected the argument that a unanimous award by three arbitrators should stand if only one was "tainted". Because the very composition of the tribunal was flawed, the resulting award became contrary to the most basic notions of morality and justice in India, the single-judge held.Hence, it proceeded to dismiss MSA Global's plea for enforcement of award..TMSA Global LLC (Oman), was represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal with advocates Kirat Singh Nagra, Kartik Yadav, Pranav Vyas, Sumedha Chadha, Sankalp Singh, Jahnavi Sindhu and Aditya Raj Patodia..Engineering Projects (India) Limited, was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi and advocates Ajit Warrier, Angad Kochhar, Himanshu Setia, Vedari Kashyap, Krisna Gambhir and Riya Kumar..[Read Judgment]