Whether an action for anti-suit injunction is maintainable before the arbitral tribunal?

In Hydropower Plant1, it was held that, “an arbitration agreement gives rise to a 'negative
obligation' whereby both parties expressly or impliedly promise to refrain from commencing
proceedings in any forum other than the forum specified in the arbitration agreement”. Similarly
in the BNP Paribas case2, J. Blair affirmed that there exists an “equitable right” based on the
pursuit of proceedings in the foreign court being “vexatious and oppressive.” Thus in a situation
where the proceedings initiated in foreign courts is against a non-party the anti-suit injunction is
maintainable. But herein the parties in the foreign proceedings are not non-parties and also the
proceedings are not vexatious. Therefore the anti-suit injunction would not be maintainable.
An Arbitral tribunal may not order a party to withdraw the case – “In the opinion of the Arbitral
Tribunal, … [Claimant’s] request for Injunctive Relief is inconsistent with this fundamental feature
of provisional and conservatory measures. [Claimant] is not seeking an order requiring
[Respondent] to request a stay of the [Court] action pending the final award in the arbitration.
Rather, Claimant is requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to grant an order requiring (Respondent] to
withdraw the [Court] Action with prejudice.”
Herein also the Malboro Co. Ltd. were moving the arbitral tribunal for an anti-suit injunction
restraining the High Court from proceeding further with the admiralty suit. Thus they did not want
a sat and hence the anti-suit injunction would not be held as maintainable.
Furthermore any anti injunction suit would have no validity if the foreign court do not recognize
it. As seen in the matter of Phillip Alexander Securities and Futures Ltd v Bamberger3, the court
held “The conventional view is that such an injunction only operates in personam with the
consequence that the English courts do not and never have regarded themselves as interfering with
the exercise by the foreign court of its jurisdiction”
In Evergreen International SA vs. Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd., several factors were
made for the anti-suit injunction –
 Whether the defendants are amendable to jurisdiction of the Singapore courts;
 Natural Forum for resolution of the dispute

1
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP[2013] UKSC 35
2
Joint Stock Asset Management Company “Ingosstrakh-Investments” v BNP Paribas SA [2011] EWHC Civ 308, at 63.
3
[1997] I L Pr 73, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Waller J; Court of Appeal, Leggatt, Morritt and
Brooke LJJ.
  The alleged vexation and oppression to the plaintiffs if the foreign proceedings are to
continue.
 The alleged injustice to the defendants as an injunction would deprive the defendants of
the advantages.
Based on these factors it can be asserted that the anti-injunction suit would not be maintainable as
if the foreign proceedings continue in the present matter which has continued, Marlboro Co. Ltd.
has suffered irreparable loss and litigations due to non-delivery of goods by M/V Kutty.