Mamaearth's distributor got a Dubai decree. Honasa fought back with Section 9 and won.

When a Dubai Decree Met a Delhi Injunction: The Honasa Consumer Case

Honasa Consumer Limited, the company behind the popular brand Mamaearth, had a problem. Its former distributor in the Middle East and Africa, RSM General Trading LLC, had walked into a court in Dubai and walked out with a decree for AED 25 million. The catch? Their contract said all disputes would be resolved by arbitration in New Delhi, under Indian law. Honasa had terminated the agreement. RSM, instead of filing a notice of arbitration, filed a suit in the Court of First Instance, Dubai. The stakes were enormous: if the Dubai decree could be enforced, Honasa’s right to arbitrate—a right it had paid for in the contract—would be dead. The company needed the High Court of Delhi to act, and fast.

The Contract That Said One Thing

The story begins with an Authorised Distribution Agreement (ADA) between Honasa and RSM. The contract was governed by Indian law. Clause 24.5 contained an arbitration clause: all disputes would be referred to a sole arbitrator in New Delhi under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Clause 24.7 added an exclusive jurisdiction clause: only the courts in Delhi would have jurisdiction. It was a standard, well-drafted commercial contract. Both sides signed it. Then things went wrong.

Honasa terminated the agreement. RSM, instead of invoking arbitration, did something else. On 25 November 2022, it filed a suit in the Court of First Instance, Dubai. It impleaded not just Honasa, but also several other entities—some of which were not even parties to the ADA. The idea was clear: by adding non-signatory defendants based in Dubai, RSM could argue that the Dubai court had jurisdiction. The Dubai court agreed to hear the case. It applied Dubai law, not Indian law. It found that the other defendants were not colluding with Honasa, but it held Honasa liable for breach of the ADA. The decree: AED 25,071,991 in damages, plus costs.

Honasa appealed. The Dubai Court of Appeal is still hearing Appeal 984/2024. But the decree was already out there, enforceable. That’s when Honasa moved the Delhi High Court.

The Section 9 Gambit

Honasa filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9 allows a court to grant interim measures of protection before, during, or after arbitral proceedings. The relief Honasa sought was unusual but necessary: an anti-enforcement injunction. It wanted the court to restrain RSM from enforcing the Dubai decree anywhere in the world, including within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The petition was heard by Justice C. Hari Shankar. The court had to decide whether it had the power to grant such an injunction under Section 9. The respondent, RSM, argued that it did not. RSM relied on the principle that the 1996 Act is a self-contained code, citing Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd. It argued that Section 9 only allows interim measures in aid of arbitration, not to block a foreign judgment. It also pointed to Sections 13 and 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provide defences against enforcement of foreign judgments. RSM said Honasa could raise those defences later, when RSM tried to execute the decree in India. Why, RSM asked, should the court intervene now?

Honasa’s counsel countered with a different set of precedents. They argued that the Dubai proceedings were a clear abuse of process. RSM had deliberately breached the arbitration and exclusive jurisdiction clauses. It had impleaded irrelevant parties to manufacture jurisdiction. The Dubai court itself had found those parties not liable. The entire suit was a tactic to bypass the agreed forum. Honasa cited Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket PTE (2003) 4 SCC 341, which laid down principles for anti-suit injunctions where foreign proceedings are oppressive and vexatious. It cited Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Xiaomi Corporation (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2424), where the Delhi High Court had granted an anti-execution injunction against a foreign decree that frustrated an arbitration clause. And it cited Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd (2011) 5 SCC 532, which held that impleading irrelevant parties cannot defeat an arbitration agreement.

The Court’s Answer: Yes, Section 9 Covers This

Justice C. Hari Shankar agreed with Honasa. The court held that Section 9 of the 1996 Act is broad enough to include an anti-enforcement injunction. The key provisions are Section 9(1)(ii)(d) and (e), which allow the court to grant interim measures of protection as it considers just and convenient. The court noted that the power under Section 9 is not limited to specific types of orders. It can extend to any measure that protects the subject matter of the arbitration or preserves the rights of the parties.

The court distinguished Fuerst Day Lawson. That case, the court said, dealt with the scope of the Act as a whole, not with the specific power under Section 9. The 1996 Act is a self-contained code, but Section 9 itself provides the power to grant interim measures. The court also rejected the argument that Sections 13 and 44A CPC were a complete answer. Those provisions deal with the conclusiveness and execution of foreign judgments. They do not prevent a court from granting interim protection under Section 9. The court said that waiting for the enforcement stage would be too late. By then, the Dubai decree could have been executed elsewhere, and Honasa’s right to arbitrate would be rendered meaningless.

The court found RSM’s conduct to be mala fide. It had deliberately breached the arbitration clause. It had impleaded non-signatory parties to justify Dubai jurisdiction. The Dubai court itself had found those parties not liable, which showed that the impleading was a sham. The court cited Cox & Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd (2024) 4 SCC 1, which held that the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the inclusion or exclusion of non-signatories. RSM could have raised that issue before the arbitrator. Instead, it chose to litigate in Dubai.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Comity Yields to Contract

The court addressed the principle of comity of courts. RSM argued that the Delhi High Court should not interfere with a judgment of a foreign court. The court agreed that comity is important, but it is not absolute. Where a party has obtained a foreign decree in deliberate breach of a contractual arbitration and exclusive jurisdiction clause, comity does not require the Indian court to sit idle. The court cited Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Xiaomi Corporation, which held that comity yields where foreign proceedings are oppressive and vexatious. The court said that comity, in fact, supports enforcing the parties’ agreed forum. If the parties agreed to arbitrate in Delhi, the Indian court has a duty to protect that agreement.

The court also made an important observation about the Dubai decree itself. The Dubai court had delegated the determination of breach of contract to an “expert.” The Delhi High Court noted, in obiter, that Indian law would never allow such delegation. Any judgment that abdicates the judicial function to an expert is invalid. This observation, while not necessary for the decision, could be significant in future challenges to foreign judgments that rely on expert determinations rather than judicial adjudication.

What This Means for Practitioners

This judgment is a powerful tool for any party facing a foreign decree obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement. The key takeaway is that Section 9 of the 1996 Act is not limited to traditional interim measures like injunctions against assets or orders for security. It includes the power to grant an anti-enforcement injunction against a foreign judgment. The court has made it clear that it will not tolerate a party running to a foreign court to avoid its contractual obligation to arbitrate.

For advocates, the case provides a clear roadmap. If your client has an arbitration agreement with an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and the other side files a suit in a foreign court, you can move under Section 9 for an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction. You need to show that the foreign proceedings are oppressive and vexatious, that they breach the contract, and that the foreign court assumed jurisdiction only by impleading irrelevant parties. The court will look at the conduct of the party that filed the foreign suit. If it is mala fide, the injunction will follow.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is simpler. Your arbitration clause is not just a piece of paper. If your counterparty ignores it and sues you in a foreign court, you have a remedy in India. The Delhi High Court will protect your right to arbitrate, even if the foreign court has already passed a decree. But you must act quickly. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to undo the damage.

THE PLAY: If a foreign decree is obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement, file a Section 9 petition for an anti-enforcement injunction immediately—do not wait for the enforcement stage under CPC Sections 13 or 44A.

The Bottom Line

The Honasa Consumer case is a landmark for commercial arbitration in India. It confirms that the Delhi High Court will use its power under Section 9 to protect arbitration agreements from being undermined by foreign litigation. The court has drawn a line: you cannot sign a contract to arbitrate in Delhi, then run to Dubai and get a decree, and expect the Indian court to look the other way. The injunction is granted. The arbitration can proceed. The contract wins.