Singapore arbitrator resigns from arbitral tribunal after Supreme Court flags non-disclosure in MSA Global case

Andre Yeap, the co-arbitrator in the arbitration between MSA Global LLC Oman and Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL), has resigned from the arbitral tribunal after the Supreme Court of India expressed serious reservations over his failure to disclose his prior involvement with one of the parties..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday took note of Yeap's resignation and asked the Delhi High Court to reconsider the validity of an interim award passed by the arbitral tribunal..The Court was hearing an appeal by MSA Global challenging a Delhi High Court order to injunct the arbitration proceedings between MSA and EPIL.During the earlier hearing of the matter on February 25, the apex court had flagged Yeap's admission that he had deliberately failed to disclose his prior involvement with one of the parties to avoid a possible challenge to the tribunal composition.The Bench referred to the explanation provided by Yeap for his non-disclosure. As noted by the Delhi High Court, Yeap had stated that had he made the disclosure, “the possibility of the respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted.”"An arbitrator who makes this sort of a comment does not deserve to be on this (arbitration),” Justice Bagchi had remarked on February 25.After these remarks, Yeap chose to resign.When the matter was heard on March 16, the Court took into account the fact that the limited issue of Yeap's continuation has been resolved and that the other issues relating to his involvement in an interim award passed by the arbitral award can be heard by the Delhi High Court.It thus remanded the matter to the High Court..The dispute arose from arbitration proceedings seated in Singapore between MSA Global LLC and EPIL. EPIL had challenged the continuation of arbitration after alleging that Yeap failed to disclose a prior professional engagement involving Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, promoter of MSA Global.The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Court) had earlier permitted continuation of the proceedings despite finding Yeap's non-disclosure to be regrettable.EPIL then moved the Delhi High Court challenging the continuation of proceedings. The High Court in 2025 restrained the arbitration from proceeding further, holding that the circumstances warranted judicial intervention.The High Court noted that MSA had earlier nominated Yeap, a Senior Counsel from Singapore, as its co-arbitrator in November 2018 in a separate matter, which involved Atwal. This earlier matter came to the notice of EPIL through a judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court on July 5, 2024. The arbitral award in that case was passed in favour of Atwal, though it was later set aside by the Gujarat High Court.These developments were not disclosed by Yeap in the present case until EPIL moved the ICC Court against his appointment..After these facts were brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court by EPIL, the High Court ruled that non-disclosure was clearly hit by the fifth schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.It added that Yeap's subsequent statement before the ICC court of the non-disclosure was a clear admission that such disclosure could vitiate the arbitral process. Such conduct amounted to a breach of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which mandates arbitrators to disclose any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties, the High Court made it clear.MSA Global then moved the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. After the Court made adverse observations against Yeap on February 25, he chose to resign..When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for MSA Global, submitted that the issue which had earlier concerned the Court no longer survived after Yeap stepped down from the tribunal. However, Singhvi maintained that the arbitration agreement itself pointed to Singapore as the seat of arbitration..Singhvi submitted that the arbitration agreement clearly treated Singapore as the seat and that EPIL itself had acknowledged this position in multiple proceedings..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for EPIL, opposed the submission. He argued that the resignation of the arbitrator does not resolve the controversy since an interim award had already been passed when Yeap was part of the tribunal.“An interim award has already been passed. By merely removing him today, that interim award does not disappear,” Rohatgi submitted..The Bench, however, indicated that the matter should return to the High Court for reconsideration in view of the changed circumstances.“With our earlier observation, the entire cause is no longer there,” CJI Kant observed during the hearing.“The validity of the order dated July 25, 2025 of the learned single-judge can be revisited by the Division Bench of the High Court,” the Court added.The Court clarified that the effect of Yeap’s participation in the interim award and the reasoning adopted by the High Court under Articles 19.1 and 19.3 of the arbitration agreement remain open for consideration.The High Court order dated December 12, 2025 was set aside and the appeal was restored to the High Court for fresh consideration.“It is clarified that we have not expressed anything on the merits,” the Bench said.