INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Neeraj Tuli, Rajat Taimni, Amrit Singh and Anuj Bahukhandi, Tuli & Co
in cross-border reinsurance, where the contract may be governed by foreign law and provide for a foreign seat, while the Indian cedant, Indian risks or the rein- surer’s Indian operations remain subject to mandatory Indian regulatory requirements. The Indian regulatory framework permits foreign reinsurers to participate in Indian reinsurance business through various struc- tures, including foreign reinsurer branches, Lloyd’s India and cross-border reinsurance arrangements. In practice, cross-border disputes may therefore involve multiple legal and regulatory regimes. Com- mon challenges include determining the appropriate forum where the parties, insured risk and relevant events are located in different jurisdictions; reconcil- ing a foreign governing-law or jurisdiction clause with mandatory Indian law; and coordinating proceedings before the Courts at the arbitral seat with proceedings in India relating to interim relief or enforcement. These issues are particularly significant in cases of reinsur- ance arrangements, where contractual obligations may be governed by one law, regulatory requirements may arise under another, and disputes may ultimately require proceedings or enforcement in a third jurisdic- tion. 2.4 Anti-Suit Injunctions Courts in India generally enforce exclusive jurisdic- tional clauses and grant anti-suit injunctions restrain- ing the defaulting party from proceeding in the non- contractual forum. For instance, in Enercon ( India ) Ltd v Enercon GmbH , (2014) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court of India upheld an anti-suit injunction to restrain pro- ceedings in England since the contractually agreed seat of the arbitration was in India and Indian Courts held exclusive supervision over the case. Anti-suit injunctions are usually granted in exceptional circumstances, such as cases where it will be impos- sible to prosecute in the agreed forum due to vis major or force majeure, or it will be oppressive to drag the parties to their chosen forum having regard to other factors. In Modi Entertainment Network v W . S . G . Cricket Pte Ltd , (2003) 4 SCC 341, the Supreme Court held that the power of anti-suit injunctions should be exercised sparingly and only in instances in which, if the injunc-
tion is denied, the end of justice will be defeated. This was further relied upon by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Thakur v Sonal Thakur , (2018) 17 SCC 12, which held that the test for anti-suit injunction is whether grave injustice would result from refusing the injunction and whether the foreign proceedings are oppressive or vexatious. In case of an arbitration, where parties designate a seat of arbitration, that designation is treated as anal- ogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Courts at the seat. Indian Courts have consistently held that, where a seat is designated, only Courts at the seat have supervisory jurisdiction for arbitration, regardless of any conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clause elsewhere. An anti-arbitration injunction is considered an even more drastic remedy than an anti-suit injunction as it prevents and restrains the parties from commencing or continuing an arbitration proceeding. The Courts have held that, where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the proper recourse is to raise jurisdictional objections before the arbitral tribunal, not to seek an anti-arbitration injunction from a civil Court. Typically, this relief is granted only in exceptional and rare cir- cumstances. For instance, more recently, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Sarr Freights Corporation v Argo Coral Maritime Ltd , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7230, grant- ed an anti-arbitration injunction restraining the con- tinuation of arbitration proceedings before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). The Court held that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties as the final signed agreement did not incor- porate the arbitration clause contained in the parties’ earlier arrangements and expressly superseded those arrangements 2.5 AI-Related Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction The approach is still evolving, as AI systems often involve multiple jurisdictions at different stages, including where the data is sourced, where it is stored and processed, where the AI system is operated and where its outputs are accessed. The recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in ANI Media Pvt . Ltd . v
151 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook