In SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., CS(OS) 868/2025, decided on 13 March 2026, the Delhi High Court declined to injunct arbitration proceedings pending before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). The Court held, at the prima facie stage, that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for grant of an anti-arbitration injunction. It found no sufficient basis to conclude that the London arbitration was vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable, and dismissed the interim application accordingly. 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The dispute arose out of a Booking Note dated 4 April 2023 concerning shipment of military cargo for the United Nations mission in Sudan from Nhava Sheva to Port Sudan. The plaintiffs, SARR Freights Corporation and SARR Freights Limited, contended that the cargo movement became impossible after conflict broke out in Sudan and the United Nations terminated its purchase order on force majeure grounds. The defendant, Argo Coral Maritime Ltd., owner of the substituted vessel MV Panthera J, claimed wrongful termination and initiated arbitration before the LMAA in London. One arbitration was first commenced against one plaintiff, and a second reference was later initiated against the other. The LMAA framed preliminary issues on the existence of an arbitration agreement, rectification of the Booking Note, identification of the “Merchant,” and identification of the “Carrier.” By partial award dated 18 October 2025, the majority tribunal rejected the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional objections. The plaintiffs then approached the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain continuation of the foreign arbitration and to challenge the legal basis of the arbitral proceedings. 

LEGAL ISSUES:

The principal issues before the High Court were whether it had territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit seeking anti-arbitration relief against a foreign-seated arbitration, whether a binding contract and a valid arbitration agreement prima facie existed between the parties, and whether the continuation of the LMAA proceedings was so oppressive, vexatious, or unconscionable as to justify an injunction. The case also raised the recurring tension between judicial restraint in arbitral matters and the residual power of civil courts under Section 9 and Section 151 CPC to intervene in rare cases of procedural abuse. 

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:

The Court first held that a civil court’s jurisdiction is not automatically excluded merely because the arbitration is seated abroad. It reaffirmed that under Section 9 CPC, civil courts retain jurisdiction over suits of a civil nature unless barred expressly or by necessary implication, and that anti-arbitration injunctions remain available in exceptional cases. It also held that part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, noting that the plaintiffs were based in New Delhi, the Booking Note bore the Delhi stamp, the cargo movement originated from New Delhi, and any enforcement proceedings would also likely lie there. On merits, however, the Court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for injuncting the arbitration. It found that the objections regarding contractual privity, the arbitration clause, and the alleged oppression of parallel references were not so clear-cut as to warrant immediate intervention. The Court further observed that whether the arbitral proceedings were vexatious or oppressive involved mixed questions of fact and law that would require evidence, not a hurried interlocutory veto. The judicial tone was essentially this: anti-arbitration injunction is a scalpel, not a hammer.   

ORDER OF THE COURT:

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prima facie establish exceptional circumstances for grant of an anti-arbitration injunction. It found no merit in the interim application and dismissed it. The Court clarified that it was expressing only a prima facie view and that nothing in the order should be read as a final pronouncement on the merits of the underlying contractual dispute, which would remain open for adjudication in the suit. The matter was then directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for further proceedings on 1 April 2026. 

ACCESS THE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION HERE .

COURT:

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

CASE TITLE:

SARR Freights Corporation & Anr. v Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. 

CASE NUMBER:

CS(OS) 868/2025 and I.A. 30141/2025 

JUDGMENT DATED:

13 March 2026 

BENCH:

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna