- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United Kingdom
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Banking & Credit and Technology industries
1. Introduction: The Clause That Can Make or Break a Deal
In cross-border commercial contracting, Indian companies often spend substantial time negotiating pricing, delivery milestones, liability caps, and service levels. Yet, one clause, arguably the most decisive when disputes arise, receives the least thoughtful attention: the arbitration clause. It sits quietly in the agreement during the negotiation phase, treated as boilerplate, but becomes the single most important clause once a dispute threatens business continuity. A poorly drafted arbitration clause can derail strategy, inflate costs, prolong litigation, and even render an otherwise strong case unenforceable.
As globalization deepens, Indian companies across technology, manufacturing, infrastructure, logistics, SaaS, financial services, and consulting routinely sign Master Service Agreements (MSAs) with foreign entities. These deals frequently adopt foreign arbitration seats such as Singapore, London, or Dubai without fully considering what those choices entail, cost of proceedings, neutrality, travel, procedural law, enforceability in India and risk of being dragged into unfamiliar courts. Indian businesses often discover too late that the clause they blindly accepted can make the difference between an enforceable award and a paper victory.
Based on Legitpro's extensive work advising Indian corporates and multinationals on cross-border contract drafting and enforcement strategy, this Playbook explains the commercial, legal, and strategic considerations that must guide the selection of arbitrators, seat, venue, governing law, and jurisdiction. The goal is to empower businesses to negotiate an arbitration clause that protects them where it matters most, in enforcement, cost, and speed.
2. Choosing the Number of Arbitrators: Balancing Cost, Risk, and Efficiency
The choice between a sole arbitrator and a three member tribunal needs more than a cursory reference to "standard practice." It must align with the dispute value, complexity, and desired neutrality.
A single arbitrator is ideal for low to mid value contracts, particularly those under USD 5 million or contracts involving routine services such as SaaS implementation, distribution, consulting, or software licensing. A sole arbitrator offers clear benefits: significantly lower fees, quicker scheduling, fewer logistical challenges and simpler document exchange. Hearings progress faster because coordination among three arbitrators is eliminated. Yet, companies must guard against one major risk, if the appointment process is not neutral or institutional, one party may perceive bias or challenge the appointment later, leading to avoidable delay.
A three-member tribunal, on the other hand, is usually preferred for high value, technically complex, or multi-jurisdictional contracts. These include EPC agreements, long term supply agreements, IP heavy technology collaborations, cross-border JV documentation or high stakes licensing arrangements. The structure, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two nominees select a neutral chair, creates balance and instills confidence, particularly for foreign investors who are wary of unfamiliar legal systems. This structure, however, substantially increases costs, often multiplying arbitrator fees two or three times. Coordination among three arbitrators, managing their schedules and resolving procedural differences inevitably extends timelines.
From Legitpro's experience, Indian exporters, IT service providers, and mid-size SaaS companies achieve the best balance when they opt for a sole arbitrator appointed through a reputable international institution like SIAC or ICC. Institutional oversight assures neutrality and prevents deadlock, while keeping cost and time proportionate to the commercial value.
3. Seat of Arbitration: The Real Legal Anchor That Determines Everything
The seat of arbitration is the most misunderstood concept in contract drafting. Many contracting parties confuse the "seat" with the physical location of hearings, but in reality, the seat determines the legal DNA of the arbitration. It defines the procedural law governing the arbitration, the level of judicial intervention and crucially, the court that has the power to annul or supervise the award.
Seats like Delhi or Mumbai work best when both parties hold operations or assets in India. Domestic seats offer three major advantages: significantly lower costs, direct enforceability, and procedural familiarity. However, foreign parties sometimes perceive Indian seats as lacking neutrality, especially in Government or PSU contracts.
Singapore remains the gold standard for India related cross border agreements. Its arbitration framework is modern, judicial intervention is minimal, costs are reasonable compared to London or Geneva and Indian courts have a strong record of enforcing Singapore-seated SIAC awards. Singapore is often the most commercially viable neutral seat for Indo-Pacific trade contracts.
London (LCIA) is globally reputed, especially for English law governed contracts. Its courts are arbitration friendly, but the cost of counsel, institutional fees and travel is exponentially high, making it disproportionate for mid value disputes.
Dubai (DIAC) and Abu Dhabi (ADGM) work well for Middle East transactions. ADGM aligns closely with English common law principles and offers a modern arbitration regime. However, foreign parties should factor in the additional procedural steps required before enforcement in India.
Paris or Geneva are often reserved for high value infrastructure, luxury, or IP driven contracts where neutrality and institutional credibility are paramount. Costs, language issues, and complexity make these seats suitable only for very large transactions.
A foundational rule: always choose a seat within a New York Convention jurisdiction with a strong enforcement track record. Avoid jurisdictions where courts routinely interfere with arbitral awards or where enforcement infrastructure is weak.
4. Venue of Arbitration: How to Manage Real-World Cost Without Compromising Neutrality
While the seat controls the law, the venue controls the logistics. Hearings may be held anywhere, even virtually, without affecting the legal nature of the arbitration. Indian companies often choose Singapore or London as the seat but strategically select Mumbai, Delhi or virtual hearings as the venue to cut down travel, accommodation, and translation costs.
A well-crafted clause separates seat and venue clearly. For example: "The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore. Hearings may be conducted virtually or in Mumbai, India, at the discretion of the tribunal."
Since international institutions now widely accept Zoom or hybrid hearings post-pandemic, companies can enjoy the benefits of a neutral foreign seat without incurring the cost-heavy burden of conducting every hearing abroad.
5. Governing Law and Jurisdiction: Ensuring Predictability and Avoiding Conflicts
Governing law defines the substantive rights of the parties, how obligations are interpreted, how breach is assessed and how indemnities operate. Jurisdiction determines which courts can intervene in the arbitration or challenge the award.
For most Indian businesses, retaining Indian law as the governing law is practical when the service delivery, operational control or obligations primarily take place in India. Indian companies should be cautious before agreeing to foreign governing laws such as English, Singapore or UAE law unless the subject matter naturally aligns with those systems.
Similarly, the courts of the seat should typically have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Allowing a foreign court unrelated to the seat to supervise the arbitration creates overlapping authority, multiplying procedural complications. Parties should avoid clauses that grant blanket jurisdiction to foreign courts merely because the counterparty requests it.
6. Enforcement and Execution Realities : The Hardest Part of Cross-Border Arbitration
Winning an award abroad is not the end, it is the beginning of enforcement. Under Sections 47 - 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign awards must be recognized by an Indian High Court before they can be executed. Debtors frequently exploit the "public policy" exception under Section 48 to delay recognition. Even after recognition, attaching assets or completing execution may take time due to fragmented asset records and bureaucratic resistance.
Indian companies must therefore consider, at the time of drafting, where the counterparty's real, attachable assets are located. If assets are in India, an India-seated arbitration is almost always faster and more effective. If assets are abroad, the seat should align with the enforcement jurisdiction. Poor alignment between seat and asset location often renders an award practically unenforceable, even if legally sound.
7. Managing Cost and Time: The Economics Behind Arbitration Choices
Foreign arbitration often surprises Indian companies with its financial impact. Domestic arbitrations typically conclude within 9-15 months and cost a fraction of foreign proceedings. Singapore arbitrations cost several times more but remain manageable for mid-size corporates. London, Paris, and Geneva, however, routinely exceed USD 300,000 to 1 million in legal and procedural expenses.
Besides arbitrator fees, companies must consider the cost of foreign counsel, expert witnesses, translation of documents, travel, discovery obligations, and institutional charges. Many SMEs find themselves spending more on arbitration than the claim value itself, an outcome that careful drafting could have prevented.
8. Practical Drafting Models : Tested Clauses for Real-World Contracts
Neutral foreign seated SIAC arbitration is best for high value technology and investment deals where neutrality is essential but enforcement may occur in India. India seated arbitration works best where the counterparty has operational presence or assets in India. Hybrid clauses, foreign seat with Indian venue, offer neutrality without excessive cost.
9. Conclusion: Arbitration Must Serve Strategy, Not Symbolism
Indian companies sometimes assume that foreign arbitration signals sophistication or global readiness. But arbitration is not a branding exercise, it is a risk management tool. The right clause should balance neutrality, enforceability, cost, and operational reality. For most India centric transactions, the best outcomes arise from India seated arbitration or a Singapore seat with hearings conducted in India or virtually. The ultimate objective is simple: win your dispute and enforce your award quickly, efficiently, and without disproportionate financial burden.
A well-crafted arbitration clause ensures that when a dispute arises, your company is not just legally correct, but strategically protected.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
