International Arbitration In India 2026: Beyond The Obvious – Key Procedures & Insights For Global Businesses And Lawyers – Part II

Article Insights

Executive Summary

• This document explains how international arbitration operates in the Indian context, from drafting arbitration clauses to recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
• Covers key procedures including interim reliefs (Sections 9 and 17), appointment of arbitrators (Section 11), jurisdiction challenges (Section 16), and setting aside of awards (Section 34).
• Highlights how Indian courts interact with India-seated and foreign-seated arbitrations, with a focus on pro-enforcement trends and limits on judicial intervention.
• Clarifies what is and is not arbitrable in India, including specialised areas like consumer, employment, insolvency, fraud, and rights in rem versus rights in personam.
• Designed for foreign investors, global businesses, and counsel navigating contracts with Indian parties, India-seated arbitrations, or enforcement of foreign awards in India.

R & D Law Chambers is a research-driven dispute resolution and advisory practice serving clients across India and internationally. We operate at the intersection of arbitration, commercial litigation, regulatory disputes, and cross-border tax and transactional issues, helping businesses and legal teams navigate high-value matters involving India. To know more about our services, you may click our services.

Explore our full range of services at the end of this document, or jump directly to any topics below.

Topics/Questions You Can Jump To

1. What role do Indian courts play in assisting with the appointment of arbitrators when a party refuses to cooperate?
2. What is the process for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator, and on what grounds can such a challenge be based?
3. If such challenge is upheld, what is the procedure for replacing the arbitrator?
4. What specific duties and powers do arbitrators have regarding procedural matters under Indian law?
5. Does Indian law permit the consolidation of multiple arbitration proceedings involving related parties or contracts, and under what conditions?
6. Can third parties who are not original signatories to the arbitration agreement be compelled to participate?
7. What are the implications of the group-of-companies doctrine in extending arbitration agreements to non-signatory affiliates?
8. What are the default procedural rules governing arbitration in India when parties do not agree on specific processes?
9. Is it mandatory for arbitration proceedings to include oral hearings, or may the process be conducted solely on a documentary basis?
10. How should a tribunal proceed if a party fails to actively participate in the proceedings?
11. Are there provisions for expedited procedures in certain arbitration cases?
12. Are arbitration proceedings considered confidential under Indian law?
13. How does the level and nature of judicial involvement vary between domestic and international arbitration scenarios in India?
14. Is there a statutory time frame within which an arbitral tribunal must render its award?
15. What are the consequences if arbitration proceedings exceed the stipulated time frame?
16. Enforcement of arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
17. How does Indian law recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards?
18. On what grounds can the enforcement of an arbitral award be refused?
19. What are the typical costs involved in conducting arbitration in India?
20. Are there provisions for the recovery of legal costs and expenses by the prevailing party?
21. Is third-party funding permitted in Indian arbitration proceedings?
22. What are the key differences between ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration under Indian law?
23. How does Indian law treat poorly drafted arbitration clauses, and what steps can be taken to avoid drafting deficiencies?
24. How is the evolving legal framework for arbitration in India shaping the country's position as a preferred arbitration hub in the global arena?

Practical Summary

About the Author

About Firm's Services

FRAMEWORK

1. What role do Indian courts play in assisting with the appointment of arbitrators when a party refuses to cooperate?

Section 11 of the Act of 1996, outlines the procedure for appointing arbitrators in India, emphasizing party autonomy while providing mechanisms for court intervention when necessary. The section ensures that arbitration proceedings are not hindered due to disagreements or inaction by any party involved.

Key Provisions of Section 11:

• Party Autonomy in Appointment: Parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing arbitrators. This autonomy allows them to tailor the arbitration process to their specific needs and preferences.
• Court Intervention (Section 11(6)): If parties fail to act as per the agreed procedure, or if there's a deadlock in the appointment process, Section 11(6) allows a party to request the Supreme Court or the High Court, or any person or institution designated by such court, to take necessary measures for appointing an arbitrator. This provision addresses scenarios where:
• • A party fails to act as required under the agreed procedure.
  • The parties or appointed arbitrators fail to reach an agreement expected of them.
  • A person or institution entrusted with any function under the procedure fails to perform it.
• Designation to Arbitral Institutions: The 2019 amendment to the Act empowered the Supreme Court and High Courts to designate arbitral institutions for appointing arbitrators, this will reduce the burden on courts and promote institutional arbitration in India.
• Timeframe for Disposal (Section 11(13)): To ensure expeditious proceedings, Section 11 provides that the relevant Court before which such applications for the appointment of arbitrators if filed, should endeavour to dispose the same of within a period sixty days from the date of service on the opposing party, reflecting the Act's emphasis on timely resolution of disputes.

Implications of Court Intervention

While party autonomy is a cornerstone of arbitration, Section 11 recognizes that court intervention may be necessary to uphold the arbitration agreement's efficacy. The courts' role under this section is primarily to facilitate the arbitration process by appointing arbitrators when the agreed-upon mechanism fails, ensuring that disputes are resolved without undue delay.

It's important to note that the courts, when approached under Section 11, focus on the appointment process and do not delve into the merits of the dispute, maintaining the arbitration's integrity as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

In summary, Section 11 of the Act balances party autonomy with judicial intervention, ensuring that arbitration proceedings commence smoothly even when parties encounter obstacles in appointing arbitrators.

2. What is the process for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator, and on what grounds can such a challenge be based?

The Act of 1996 provides a structured process for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator to ensure fairness and impartiality in arbitration proceedings. The challenge mechanism is primarily governed by Section 12 and Section 13 of the Act.

Grounds for Challenge (Section 12)

A party can challenge an arbitrator's appointment if:

• Justifiable Doubts about Impartiality or Independence – If circumstances exist that raise legitimate concerns about an arbitrator's bias or partiality. The Fifth Schedule provides a list of relationships and situations that may give rise to such doubts.
• Lack of Required Qualifications – If the arbitrator does not meet the agreed-upon qualifications specified in the arbitration agreement.
• Disqualification under the Seventh Schedule – If an arbitrator falls under any category mentioned in the Seventh Schedule, they are automatically ineligible to act as an arbitrator, and their appointment can be challenged.

Process for Challenge (Section 13)

• Filing a Written Challenge – The party raising the objection must submit a written statement of reasons to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days of becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the challenge.
• Decision by the Arbitral Tribunal – The arbitral tribunal will decide on the challenge. If the challenge is rejected, the tribunal continues with the proceedings.
• Recourse to Courts (Post-Award) – If the arbitral tribunal rejects the challenge, the party cannot immediately appeal to a court. Instead, they must wait until the final award is passed and then challenge the award under Section 34 (on grounds of arbitrator bias or lack of jurisdiction).

Judicial Intervention

• If the arbitrator is ineligible under the Seventh Schedule, a party can directly approach the High Court or Supreme Court (under Section 14) for termination of the arbitrator's mandate without waiting for the final award.
• Courts have the power to remove an arbitrator if they find valid grounds of bias, conflict of interest, or disqualification.

In summary, challenges to an arbitrator's appointment must be raised promptly and follow the structured process under the Act. While the arbitral tribunal initially decides the challenge, courts can intervene after the award is passed or earlier in cases of automatic disqualification. To read more about removing an arbitrator click here.

3. If such challenge is upheld, what is the procedure for replacing the arbitrator?

If a challenge to an arbitrator is upheld, the procedure for replacing the arbitrator is governed by Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996. The process ensures minimal disruption to the arbitration proceedings while maintaining fairness and neutrality.

Termination of the Arbitrator's Mandate (Section 14 & 15)

• Once a challenge is upheld, the arbitrator's mandate is terminated, meaning they can no longer act in the arbitration.
• If an arbitrator resigns, becomes unable to perform their duties, or is disqualified, their mandate automatically ceases.
• If a party challenges an arbitrator under Section 12 or 13, and the court (in case of ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule) or the arbitral tribunal upholds the challenge, the arbitrator must be replaced.

Appointment of a Substitute Arbitrator [Section 15(2)]

• A substitute arbitrator is appointed following the same procedure that applied to the original arbitrator's appointment.
• If the arbitration agreement specifies a procedure for appointment, that process must be followed again.
• If the parties fail to agree or if the appointing authority does not act, the court can step in under Section 11 to appoint a new arbitrator.

Effect on Arbitration Proceedings [Section 15(3)]

• The replacement of an arbitrator does not automatically render previous proceedings invalid.
• The tribunal, in consultation with the parties, decides whether to repeat any part of the arbitration process conducted before the replacement.
• Generally, if the arbitration was at an advanced stage, the new arbitrator may continue from where the previous arbitrator left off.

The replacement of an arbitrator follows the same appointment process as the original arbitrator and does not disrupt the proceedings unless a re-hearing is deemed necessary. This ensures continuity while maintaining fairness in arbitration.

4. What specific duties and powers do arbitrators have regarding procedural matters under Indian law?

Duties and Powers of Arbitrators Regarding Procedural Matters Under Indian Law

Arbitrators in India derive their powers and duties primarily from the Act of 1996, particularly under Sections 18 to 27. These provisions grant arbitrators substantial authority to conduct proceedings efficiently while ensuring fairness and due process.

Key Duties of Arbitrators

1. Duty to Act Impartially and Fairly (Section 18)
   
   • Arbitrators must ensure that both parties are treated equally and given a full opportunity to present their case.
   • There should be no bias or favouritism in procedural decisions.
2. Duty to Conduct Proceedings Efficiently (Section 19 & 20)
   
   • Arbitrators are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allowing flexibility in conducting proceedings.
   • They have the discretion to decide procedural rules, subject to party agreement.
   • The tribunal determines the time, place, and mode of arbitration, keeping convenience in mind.
3. Duty to Decide on Jurisdiction (Section 16)
   
   • Arbitrators have the power to rule on their own jurisdiction, including objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement.
4. Duty to Maintain Confidentiality (Section 42A)
   
   • The proceedings and the arbitral award must remain confidential, except when disclosure is required by law.

Key Powers of Arbitrators

1. Power to Decide Procedural Aspects (Section 19)
   
   • The tribunal can lay down its own procedure if parties do not agree on one.
   • This includes setting timelines, submission formats, and hearing processes.
2. Power to Conduct Hearings and Accept Evidence (Sections 23-27)
   
   • The tribunal can decide whether hearings will be oral or based on written submissions.
   • It can administer oaths and summon witnesses or documents.
3. Power to Appoint Experts (Section 26)
   
   • The tribunal may appoint experts to assist in technical matters and require parties to provide relevant information to them.
4. Power to Issue Interim Measures (Section 17)
   
   • Arbitrators can grant interim relief, such as preserving assets, securing evidence, or restraining certain actions before the final award.
5. Power to Proceed Ex Parte (Section 25)
   
   • If a party fails to participate without valid reason, the tribunal can proceed with arbitration and make an award based on available evidence.
6. Power to Extend Time for Awards (Section 29A)
   
   • The tribunal must complete proceedings within 12 months (extendable by 6 months with party consent). If more time is needed, court approval is required.

Arbitrators in India have broad powers to manage procedural aspects of arbitration while ensuring fairness, efficiency, and compliance with the Act. They can determine rules of procedure, take evidence, grant interim relief, and even rule on their own jurisdiction. However, these powers are balanced by duties to act impartially, follow due process, and conduct proceedings efficiently.

MULTI-PARTY DISPUTES AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS

5. Does Indian law permit the consolidation of multiple arbitration proceedings involving related parties or contracts, and under what conditions?

Indian law does not explicitly provide for the consolidation of arbitration proceedings under the Act of 1996. However, Indian courts have increasingly recognized and favoured consolidation in cases where multiple arbitration agreements exist in related contracts or among interconnected parties. The judiciary has taken a pragmatic approach to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting decisions, and procedural inefficiencies.

The Supreme Court, in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.; [2012] 13 S.C.R. 402, read the principle of composite reference into Section 11 of the Act, allowing a single arbitral proceeding where:

1. a single economic transaction is involved,
2. contracts include a main contract and ancillary contracts, and
3. the "Group of Companies" doctrine applies.

Also, in PR Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited v. B.H.H. Securities Private Limited; 2012 AIR SCW 2317, the Supreme Court observed that where a party has arbitration agreements with two separate parties, there is no bar on consolidating claims and referring them to the same arbitral tribunal. The Court emphasized that consolidation prevents inconsistent awards and unnecessary litigation.

The Delhi High Court in Gammon India Ltd. v. National Highways Authority; AIR 2020 DELHI 132, applied principles of res judicata and observed that courts must strive to consolidate arbitrations to avoid multiple proceedings.

However, consolidation is not an automatic right and requires party consent unless the court determines that arbitration agreements are so interconnected that separate proceedings would be impractical. The Supreme Court in Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd; AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5070, clarified that consolidation cannot be applied where different legal frameworks govern disputes, such as when one arbitration is domestic and another is international, leading to different grounds of challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

In multi-tiered contractual structures, such as large-scale construction projects, consolidation is not permitted unless the employer, main contractor, and subcontractors have agreed to a unified dispute resolution mechanism. The Supreme Court in Zonal General Manager, IRCON Int Ltd. v. Vinay Heavy Equipments clarified that privity of contract must be respected, and correspondences between a non-contracting party and a subcontractor do not create a tripartite arbitration agreement.

A key issue arises when disputes continue after an arbitral tribunal is constituted. In Panipat Jalandhar NH 1 Tollway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India; ARB.P. 820 of 2021, the Delhi High Court held that if an arbitral tribunal has already been dealing with related disputes under the same agreement, referring subsequent disputes to the same tribunal enhances efficiency and avoids duplication.

To bring greater clarity and uniformity, the legislature may consider codifying these principles, ensuring that consolidation remains an exception rather than the norm, subject to party consent and case-specific judicial discretion. To read more about composite reference click here.

6. Can third parties who are not original signatories to the arbitration agreement be compelled to participate?

Under Indian law, arbitration is fundamentally based on party autonomy, meaning that only parties who have expressly agreed to arbitrate can be bound by an arbitration agreement. However, Indian courts have developed exceptions to this principle, allowing third parties to be compelled to participate in arbitration under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.; [2012] 13 S.C.R. 402, introduced the Group of Companies Doctrine, holding that a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement if it is a part of the same corporate group and played a significant role in the execution or performance of the contract. The Court emphasized that arbitration cannot be avoided merely because the formal agreement was signed by one entity when the entire group was involved in the transaction.

Similarly, in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises; 2018 (15) SCC 678, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that when multiple contracts form part of a single economic transaction, non-signatories may be referred to arbitration if their involvement is necessary to resolve the dispute effectively. The Court held that arbitration should not be fragmented when the agreements are interconnected and part of a composite contractual framework.

Indian courts have also recognized agency and alter ego principles to bind non-signatories. If a party is found to be acting as an agent of a signatory, it may be compelled to arbitrate. The Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil has been applied in cases where a non-signatory entity is merely an instrumentality or alter ego of the signatory.

Thus, while non-signatories are generally not bound by arbitration agreements, Indian courts have progressively expanded the scope of arbitration to include third parties in specific cases, ensuring that arbitration remains an effective dispute resolution mechanism in complex, multi-party commercial transactions.

7. What are the implications of the group-of-companies doctrine in extending arbitration agreements to non-signatory affiliates?

The Group-of-Companies Doctrine allows arbitration agreements to extend to non-signatory affiliates if their conduct indicates an intention to be bound by the arbitration process. This doctrine has been recognized in Indian jurisprudence to prevent fragmentation of disputes within corporate groups. The Supreme Court in Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc; [2012] 13 S.C.R. 402, first upheld this principle, ruling that a non-signatory group entity could be bound by an arbitration agreement if its participation in contract negotiation, execution, or performance indicated a mutual intent to arbitrate.

The Constitutional bench's judgement in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.; Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020; clarified the doctrine's scope, affirming that it has an independent existence in Indian arbitration law and is not merely a byproduct of statutory provisions like Sections 8 and 45 of the Act of 1996. The Court held that a non-signatory may be compelled to arbitrate if there is evidence of its involvement in the transaction, a commonality of subject matter, and an interconnected relationship with the signatory parties. The judgment emphasized that arbitration remains a consensual process, but modern commercial realities necessitate recognizing implied consent in complex corporate structures.

The ruling also impacts the referral stage of arbitration proceedings. Courts should not undertake a detailed inquiry into the role of a non-signatory at the referral stage but should leave the determination to the arbitral tribunal, in line with the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle. The Court further clarified that a non-signatory may seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Act, but only after the tribunal confirms its status as a party to the arbitration. This distinction ensures that only entities genuinely intended to be bound by arbitration gain access to its procedural benefits.

The doctrine also holds significance in international arbitration. When an arbitration agreement is governed by Indian law, tribunals seated in jurisdictions such as Singapore or England may apply the Group-of-Companies Doctrine if Indian law is determined to be the governing law of the arbitration agreement.

By recognizing the Group-of-Companies Doctrine, the Supreme Court has reinforced India's pro-arbitration approach, aligning it with international practices. However, courts and tribunals must apply the doctrine cautiously to avoid binding entities merely due to their corporate affiliation, ensuring that arbitration remains grounded in party autonomy and genuine consent.

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS & COURT INVOLVEMENT

8. What are the default procedural rules governing arbitration in India when parties do not agree on specific processes?

When parties to an Indian-seated arbitration do not specify procedural rules, the arbitration is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1996. The Act provides a comprehensive framework that ensures a fair and efficient arbitration process while allowing flexibility for party autonomy.

Under Section 19, arbitration proceedings are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Instead, the tribunal has the discretion to determine the procedure, subject to the provisions of the Act. In the absence of an agreement, the tribunal can decide on procedural aspects, including timelines, submission of evidence, and conduct of hearings.

For the appointment of arbitrators, Section 11 provides that if parties fail to agree on a procedure, the appointment will be made by the designated authority, such as the High Court or the Supreme Court, depending on whether it is a domestic or international commercial arbitration.

The default seat of arbitration is determined based on the circumstances of the case, but if not agreed upon, Section 20 allows the tribunal to decide the place of arbitration. Similarly, Section 23 provides that if timelines for pleadings are not fixed by the parties, the tribunal will set them, ensuring the process is conducted expeditiously.

Hearings and evidence submission are addressed in Section 24, which grants the tribunal discretion to conduct proceedings based on written submissions or oral hearings unless a party requests a hearing.

The tribunal is also empowered under Section 25 to proceed ex parte if a party fails to appear or present its case.

For interim measures, Section 17 allows the tribunal to grant interim reliefs in domestic arbitration, while courts retain similar powers under Section 9.

In the absence of agreed rules for rendering an award, Section 31 mandates that the award be in writing, signed by the majority of arbitrators, and state reasons unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

The timeline for issuing an award is twelve months under Section 29A, extendable by six months with party consent, after which court intervention is required.

Thus, in the absence of party-determined rules, the Act provides a structured yet flexible framework to ensure that arbitration proceeds efficiently while upholding fairness and due process.

9. Is it mandatory for arbitration proceedings to include oral hearings, or may the process be conducted solely on a documentary basis?

Arbitration proceedings in India do not mandatorily require oral hearings and can be conducted solely on a documentary basis unless a party requests an oral hearing.

Under Section 24 of the Act, the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to decide whether the arbitration will be conducted through oral hearings or based on written submissions, unless indicated otherwise by the parties. However, if either party requests an oral hearing at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, the tribunal must grant it unless the parties have agreed otherwise. This ensures that parties have a fair opportunity to present their case while also allowing for flexibility in procedural conduct.

In practice, many arbitrations, especially those involving straightforward contractual disputes, are resolved through written submissions and documentary evidence without oral hearings. This approach is often preferred in institutional arbitrations or cases where efficiency and cost-effectiveness are prioritized. On the other hand, in complex disputes involving witness testimony or technical issues requiring expert opinions, oral hearings are usually conducted.

Additionally, tribunals must ensure that proceedings adhere to principles of natural justice and equal treatment of parties as mandated by Section 18 of the Act. While a tribunal may limit oral arguments to streamline proceedings, it cannot deny a party the right to be heard if such a request is made.

Therefore, while oral hearings are not mandatory, the process can be conducted purely on a documentary basis unless a party insists on an oral hearing, ensuring flexibility while safeguarding due process.

10. How should a tribunal proceed if a party fails to actively participate in the proceedings?

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if a party fails to participate in arbitration proceedings without valid justification, the arbitral tribunal has specific powers to proceed while ensuring fairness. The relevant provisions governing such situations are Sections 25 and 32 of the Act.

Tribunal's Approach in Case of Non-Participation:

1. Failure to Submit a Statement of Claim or Defence [Section 25(a) & (b)]
   
   • If the claimant fails to submit its claim, the tribunal may terminate the proceedings unless there is a valid reason for the delay.
   • If the respondent does not submit a defence, the tribunal does not automatically rule in favour of the claimant. Instead, it proceeds to examine the evidence and decide based on merits.
2. Failure to Appear at Hearings or Produce Evidence [Section 25(c)]
   
   • If a party does not appear for hearings or fails to provide required evidence, the tribunal may continue the proceedings and make an award based on evidence available before it.
3. Proceeding ex parte (One-Sided Hearing)
   
   • If one party deliberately avoids arbitration despite receiving notices, the tribunal can proceed ex parte and make a decision based on the submissions of the present party.
   • However, the tribunal must ensure that the absent party was duly informed and given an opportunity to participate.
4. Termination of Proceedings (Section 32)
   
5. • If the tribunal finds that further proceedings are meaningless due to a party's prolonged absence or lack of cooperation, it may decide to terminate arbitration.

Safeguards to Prevent Unfair Advantage

• The tribunal must not automatically accept the claims of the participating party without proper scrutiny.
• It must examine evidence, ensure procedural fairness, and consider any possible justification for non-participation.

The tribunal has the authority to continue proceedings even if one party refuses to participate, ensuring that arbitration is not stalled due to non-cooperation. However, it must ensure due process is followed and that decisions are based on evidence rather than defaulting in favour of the present party.

11. Are there provisions for expedited procedures in certain arbitration cases?

Yes, Indian arbitration law provides for expedited procedures in certain cases to ensure swift resolution of disputes.

Section 29B of the Act of 1996 introduces the concept of fast-track arbitration, allowing parties to agree that the dispute shall be resolved through an expedited process. Under this provision, the parties to an arbitration agreement may, either before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal, agree in writing to have their dispute resolved by fast-track procedure.

This newly added provision prescribes the tribunal must issue the arbitral award within six months from the date it enters reference. The procedure is primarily conducted on a documentary basis, with oral hearings allowed only if deemed necessary by the tribunal. The tribunal is also restricted in the number of extensions it can seek, ensuring timely completion.

In addition to the statutory framework for fast-track arbitration under Indian law, several arbitral institutions (both domestic and international) offer expedited procedures for the resolution of disputes. In India, institutions such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), when applied to India-seated arbitrations, provide mechanisms for fast-tracking disputes. Similarly, leading international institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) also offer expedited arbitration procedures. These rules are typically invoked in matters involving lower claim values or where an urgent resolution is required. Expedited procedures generally provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, compressed timelines for submission of pleadings, and may involve limited or no oral hearings to ensure swift adjudication.

Expedited procedures help reduce costs, minimize procedural delays, and make arbitration a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism, particularly for commercial disputes where speed is crucial.

12. Are arbitration proceedings considered confidential under Indian law?

Under Indian law, arbitration proceedings are generally considered confidential. Section 42A of the Act of 1996 explicitly mandates confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. It states that the arbitrator, arbitral institution, and parties to the arbitration agreement must maintain the confidentiality of all arbitration proceedings, including pleadings, evidence, and awards, except where disclosure is necessary for the enforcement or challenge of an arbitral award or where it is required by law.

The duty of confidentiality extends to all documents, communications, and submissions exchanged during the arbitration. However, there are certain exceptions where disclosure is permitted, including:

• When it is necessary for enforcing or challenging the award before a court.
• When disclosure is required under legal or regulatory obligations.
• When the parties have mutually agreed to disclose certain information.
• In cases involving public interest or if it is required for protecting the rights of a party.

While the confidentiality obligation applies to the arbitration process, the enforcement of the award in court typically becomes a matter of public record, unless the court permits redaction or anonymization of sensitive information. Therefore, while arbitration in India is largely confidential, practical limitations arise when the matter is taken to court for enforcement or challenge.

13. How does the level and nature of judicial involvement vary between domestic and international arbitration scenarios in India?

Yes, there are notable differences in court involvement depending on whether the arbitration is domestic or international under Indian law.

In domestic arbitration, Indian courts have a more extensive role in supervising and assisting the arbitration process. Courts may intervene in the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, grant interim relief under Section 9, and hear challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34. Enforcement of domestic awards follows the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and is generally straightforward unless challenged.

In international commercial arbitration, where at least one party is a foreign entity, court intervention is more limited. While Indian courts may assist in appointing arbitrators and granting interim measures, they exercise greater restraint in interfering with proceedings or awards. Challenges to awards are also subject to stricter scrutiny under Section 34, especially for foreign-seated arbitrations, where Indian courts apply a minimal intervention approach under the principles established in the BALCO ruling.

For foreign-seated arbitrations, Indian courts primarily assist in enforcing awards under the New York Convention or the Geneva Convention, as per PART-II of the Arbitration Act. Indian courts cannot set aside a foreign award but may refuse enforcement only on limited grounds specified under Section 48 & Section 57, such as a violation of public policy.

Thus, while Indian courts have an essential role in both domestic and international arbitration, their involvement in international arbitration is more restricted to align with global best practices and promote India as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

DURATION

14. Is there a statutory time frame within which an arbitral tribunal must render its award?

Yes, Indian law prescribes a statutory time frame for the arbitral tribunal to render its award. Section 29A of the Act of 1996, introduced through the 2015 amendment, mandates that an arbitral award in domestic arbitration must be made within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings.

This period can be extended by six months with the mutual consent of the parties. However, if the award is not rendered within this extended period, parties must seek further extension from the court, which may grant an extension or terminate the mandate of the tribunal. If the tribunal is terminated, the court may appoint a new tribunal to complete the arbitration.

For international commercial arbitration, no specific time limit is prescribed under Section 29A. However, proviso in Section 29A(1) does reflect the intent of the legislation that tribunals are expected to conduct proceedings efficiently without undue delay.

Additionally, fast-track arbitration under Section 29B allows parties to agree on a six-month time frame for the award, where proceedings are primarily conducted based on written submissions without oral hearings, unless necessary.

These provisions aim to prevent delays and make arbitration a more time-bound and effective dispute resolution mechanism in India.

15. What are the consequences if arbitration proceedings exceed the stipulated time frame?

Under Section 29A of the Act of 1996, if an arbitral tribunal fails to render its award within the stipulated time frame—twelve months from its constitution, extendable by six months with mutual consent—the following consequences ensue:

• Termination of Mandate: The mandate of the arbitrator(s) is terminated unless the court extends the period, either before or after its expiry. This means the arbitrator(s) lose their authority to continue with the proceedings.
• Court's Discretion to Reduce Fees: If the delay is attributable to the arbitral tribunal, the court may order a reduction of the arbitrator(s)' fees by up to five percent for each month of such delay.
• Appointment of New Arbitrator(s): Upon termination of the mandate, the court may appoint a new arbitrator or arbitral tribunal to continue the proceedings, considering the stage and circumstances of the case.
• It's important to note that if an application for extension is pending before the court, the mandate of the arbitrator(s) continues until the court decides on the application.

Therefore, adherence to the prescribed timelines is crucial to ensure the validity and enforceability of arbitral awards in India.

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS

16. Enforcement of arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

The enforcement of an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depends on whether the award is a domestic award or a foreign award.

For domestic awards, enforcement is governed by PART-I of the Act. Under Section 36, an arbitral award is treated as a decree of the court and becomes enforceable once the period for filing a challenge under Section 34 (i.e., three months from receipt of the award) has expired, or if a challenge has been filed and rejected. If the award is unchallenged or upheld, it can be enforced through execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

For foreign awards, enforcement falls under PART-II of the Act, which adopts the New York Convention (Section 44) and the Geneva Convention (Section 53). A party seeking enforcement must file an application before the relevant High Court with a certified copy of the award and the arbitration agreement. The court may refuse enforcement only on specific grounds under Section 48, such as lack of proper notice to a party, incapacity, the award exceeding the scope of arbitration, procedural irregularities, or a violation of Indian public policy. If no such ground is established, the foreign award is deemed equivalent to a decree and can be executed in the same manner as a domestic court judgment.

Indian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach, limiting their interference in both domestic and foreign arbitral awards. However, challenges based on public policy have sometimes led to delays, though recent judicial trends favour minimal intervention to promote arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.

17. How does Indian law recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards?

Indian law recognizes and enforces foreign arbitral awards under PART-II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which aligns with India's obligations under the New York Convention and the Geneva Convention. PART-II is divided into two chapters – Chapter I deals with New York Convention awards (Sections 44-52), and Chapter II addresses Geneva Convention awards (Sections 53-60). The enforcement process under these provisions ensures that foreign arbitral awards are treated similarly to domestic court decrees while allowing limited grounds for refusal.

Under Chapter I:

Section 44, a foreign award refers to an arbitral award made in a reciprocating country notified by the Indian government. The party seeking enforcement must apply under Section 47 before the relevant High Court, submitting the original award, the arbitration agreement, and an authenticated translation if necessary. Once the court is satisfied with its enforceability, the award is deemed equivalent to a decree of the court, allowing the award-holder to execute it under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 48 lays down specific grounds for refusing enforcement, mirroring Article V of the New York Convention. These include incapacity of parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or opportunity to present a case, an award beyond the scope of arbitration, procedural irregularities, or conflict with Indian public policy. The Supreme Court, in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.; 1994 AIR 860, held that public policy objections must be narrowly interpreted, limited to fraud, corruption, or violations of fundamental legal principles, sovereignty, and morality.

Section 49 states that once the High Court determines an award to be enforceable, it is deemed a decree and can be executed like any other court judgment.

Section 50 further limits appeal against enforcement orders, permitting them only in cases where enforcement is refused, thereby reinforcing India's pro-arbitration stance.

Under Chapter II:

Section 53 provides for the interpretation of foreign award under this Chapter. Foreign Award under Chapter-II means an arbitral award on differences relating to matters considered as commercial under the law in force in India made after the 28th day of July, 1924, subject to certain conditions as highlighted under Section 53(1)(a) to (c).

Section 55 states that any foreign arbitral award enforceable under this chapter is binding on the all parties to arbitration and may be used in Indian courts as a defence, setoff, or otherwise in any legal proceedings.

Section 56 lays down specific requirements that the parties must follow when applying for enforcement of foreign award under this chapter. The parties must produce before relevant High Court at the time of application: - (1) The original award or a copy duly authenticated according to the law of the awardmaking country, (2) Evidence that the award is final i.e., no further appeals or challenges are possible & (3) Evidence showing the conditions in Section 57(1)(a) to (c) of the Act are satisfied. It is also important to note that if any required document is in a foreign language, you must furnish an English translation certified by a diplomatic or consular agent (or otherwise as Indian law permits).

Section 57(1) lays down specific conditions for a foreign award to be enforceable under this Chapter i.e. (1) it arises from a valid arbitration submission under the law governing the arbitration, (2) it must concern a subjectmatter capable of being arbitrated in India, (3) it must have been made by the tribunal constituted in accordance with the parties' agreement and in conformity with the law governing the arbitration procedure, (4) it must have become final and not open to appeal or challenge in the jurisdiction where such award is made, and (5) it must not conflict with Indian public policy. Even if these core conditions in Section 57(1) are satisfied, Sections 57(2) and Sections 57(3) enumerate narrow, additional grounds on which enforcement may still be refused or adjourned.

Section 58 stated that once the High Court is satisfied that a foreign award meets the GenevaConvention enforcement criteria, it is deemed a decree and can be executed like any other court judgment.

Section 59 also limits appeal against enforcement orders, permitting them only in cases where enforcement is refused.

Overall, PART-II of the Act reflects India's commitment to international arbitration by ensuring minimal judicial intervention while preserving the fundamental rights of parties in cases of procedural violations or awards contrary to Indian public policy. However, practical challenges such as procedural delays and strategic objections by award debtors remain potential hurdles in the enforcement process.

18. On what grounds can the enforcement of an arbitral award be refused?

The enforcement of an arbitral award can be refused based on different grounds depending on whether it is a domestic award or a foreign award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

For domestic awards, enforcement can be refused under Section 34 if the award is challenged successfully on grounds such as:

• Incapacity of a party to the arbitration agreement.
• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the applicable law.
• Lack of proper notice of the arbitration proceedings or the appointment of the arbitrator.
• Inability to present the case due to procedural unfairness.
• Exceeding the scope of arbitration, where the award includes matters beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement.
• Serious procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the process.
• Violation of Indian public policy, which includes awards obtained by fraud, corruption, or those that conflict with fundamental legal principles.

For foreign awards, enforcement may be refused under: -

1. Section 48 (New York Convention), if:
   
   • A party was under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement was not valid under the governing law.
   • The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice or was unable to present its case.
   • The award goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.
   • The composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedure was not in accordance with the agreement or the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
   • The award has not yet become binding or has been set aside in the country where it was made.
   • Enforcement would be contrary to Indian public policy, which includes awards involving fraud, corruption, or those that violate fundamental legal or moral standards.
2. Section 57 (Geneva Convention), if:
   
   • The award was not made in pursuance of a submission to arbitration valid under the law governing that arbitration.
   • The subject‑matter of the dispute is not capable of being settled by arbitration under Indian law.
   • The award was made by a tribunal not constituted in accordance with the arbitration agreement or without following the procedure agreed by the parties or required by the law governing such arbitration procedure.
   • The award has not become final, or is still open to appeal or challenge in the country where it was made.
   • The award has been annulled in the country in which it was made.
   • The party against whom enforcement is sought was not given notice of the arbitration proceedings in sufficient time to present its case, or the same being under a legal incapacity, was not properly represented.
   • The award does not deal with all matters submitted to arbitration or contains decisions on issues beyond the scope of the submission.
   • Enforcement would be contrary to Indian public policy (i.e. awards involving fraud, corruption, or those that violate fundamental legal or moral standards.).
   • The Court may refuse enforcement of the award, if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves a ground for refusal exists under the law applicable to the arbitration process, even if such ground is not specified in Section 57 of the Act.

Indian courts generally follow a pro-enforcement approach, especially for foreign awards, and interpret public policy exceptions narrowly to minimize judicial interference in arbitration.

COSTS

19. What are the typical costs involved in conducting arbitration in India?

The costs involved in conducting arbitration in India vary depending on several factors, including the arbitral institution, the fees of the tribunal, administrative expenses, legal representation, venue costs, and incidental expenses.

For ad hoc arbitrations, the arbitrators' fees are typically determined based on mutual agreement or as prescribed under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Fourth Schedule provides a fee structure based on the claim amount, with fees ranging from ₹45,000 to ₹30,00,000 per arbitrator. However, this schedule applies only to Indian-seated arbitrations which are not conducted by any institutional arbitration centres and does not bind them unless the parties agree. Arbitrators in high-value cases often charge fees beyond the statutory limits.

Institutional arbitrations, such as those conducted by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), or the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), follow their own fee schedules, which include arbitrators' fees, administrative costs, and filing fees. Institutional arbitration is often more expensive but provides structured timelines and administrative support.

Legal representation costs vary widely depending on the law firm, complexity of the case, and seniority of the lawyers engaged. High-profile disputes often involve senior counsels, leading to significant expenses. Other costs include venue rentals for hearings, transcription and stenography services, expert witness fees, and travel expenses for arbitrators or parties.

Additionally, if court intervention is required such as for interim relief under Section 9, appointment of arbitrators under Section 11, or enforcement proceedings under Section 36, litigation costs may add to the overall expenses. While arbitration is generally perceived as a cost-effective alternative to litigation, the total costs can be substantial, especially in complex, high-stakes disputes.

20. Are there provisions for the recovery of legal costs and expenses by the prevailing party?

Yes, Indian arbitration law allows the prevailing party to recover legal costs and expenses. Under Section 31A of the Act of 1996, which was introduced by the 2015 amendment, the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to award costs, including legal fees, expenses, and tribunal fees, to the successful party.

The principle followed is the "costs follow the event" rule, meaning the losing party generally bears the costs unless the tribunal determines otherwise. The tribunal considers factors such as the conduct of the parties, the complexity of the case, and whether a party unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

In cases of institutional arbitration, cost allocation may also be guided by the rules of the chosen arbitration institution. Additionally, Indian courts have upheld the principle that cost awards made by arbitral tribunals should not be interfered with unless they are patently unreasonable or against public policy.

This provision aligns Indian arbitration with international standards, ensuring that parties are not unduly burdened by arbitration costs when they have a valid claim or defence.

21. Is third-party funding permitted in Indian arbitration proceedings?

Third-party funding (TPF) in arbitration is not expressly regulated under Indian law but is generally permitted, especially in the context of commercial arbitration. There is no statutory prohibition against TPF in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While Indian courts have recognized third-party funding in litigation such as in the Supreme Court's decision in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji; 2018 (5) SCC 379, which acknowledged that non-lawyer third-party funders are not prohibited from financing litigation, there is no direct ruling on its applicability to arbitration.

Institutional arbitration rules in India, such as those of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), do not currently have specific provisions regulating TPF. However, in international arbitration, parties are increasingly required to disclose third-party funding arrangements to avoid conflicts of interest, and similar practices may develop in India.

While third-party funding can help parties manage costs and mitigate financial risks, uncertainties remain regarding enforceability and funders' rights, particularly in cases where adverse cost orders or security for costs are sought. Future legislative developments or judicial clarifications may provide more certainty on the role of TPF in Indian arbitration.

MISCELLANEOUS

22. What are the key differences between ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration under Indian law?

Under Indian law, arbitration can be conducted through ad hoc arbitration or institutional arbitration, each with distinct characteristics.

Ad hoc arbitration is a flexible process where parties independently decide on procedural rules, appoint arbitrators, and manage the arbitration without the involvement of an arbitral institution. While this allows greater control, it can lead to delays, increased costs, and procedural disputes, especially if parties fail to reach agreements on crucial aspects. The absence of administrative support can also make record-keeping and logistics challenging.

In contrast, institutional arbitration is conducted under the rules of a recognized arbitral institution such as SIAC, ICC, LCIA, MCIA, or ICA (India). These institutions provide structured procedures, manage the appointment of arbitrators, and oversee the arbitration process, ensuring efficiency and reducing delays. They also impose clear timelines and offer administrative support, making institutional arbitration more predictable and effective. Although it involves administrative fees, the overall cost may be lower due to faster resolution and reduced court intervention.

While ad hoc arbitration remains prevalent in India, particularly in domestic disputes and government contracts, institutional arbitration is gaining traction due to its structured approach. The 2019 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which introduced the Arbitration Council of India (ACI), further promotes institutional arbitration, signalling a shift toward a more efficient arbitration framework in the country.

23. How does Indian law treat poorly drafted arbitration clauses, and what steps can be taken to avoid drafting deficiencies?

Although Indian law does recognize arbitration agreements or clauses that may be vague or lack clarity; particularly in relation to the seat, venue, or governing law, it still is very imperative that such clauses be drafted with precision to ensure their enforceability as have parties envisaged, and also to avoid interpretational disputes that may delay the arbitration proceedings itself.

Such arbitration clauses may suffer from defects such as uncertainty about the governing rules, the arbitral institution, the procedure for appointment of arbitrators, the seat of arbitration, or even contradictory terms. For example, a clause stating that disputes "may be referred to mediation before initiating arbitration" without explicitly mandating such pre-arbitration mechanism could be deemed uncertain, leading to potential litigation over its enforceability. Similarly, an agreement that specifies two different arbitral institutions or provides conflicting dispute resolution mechanisms can cause practical difficulties in implementation.

To avoid drafting deficiencies, parties should follow best practices while drafting arbitration clauses:

First, clarity in specifying the arbitration institution, applicable rules, and the procedure for appointing arbitrators is crucial. For example, instead of vaguely stating that "arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of an international body," the clause should specify "arbitration shall be conducted under the ICC Arbitration Rules by a tribunal of three arbitrators seated in New Delhi."

Second, avoiding conflicting dispute resolution mechanisms is essential. A clause that provides for arbitration but simultaneously grants jurisdiction to courts for final determination can lead to disputes over arbitrability.

Third, specifying the seat of arbitration clearly helps in determining the procedural law governing the arbitration. Ambiguities in this regard can lead to litigation over whether the arbitration is domestic or international or even whether the same is foreign-seated, and which court has supervisory jurisdiction.

Another common mistake is failing to establish a proper mechanism for arbitrator appointment. If the clause merely states that disputes "shall be referred to arbitration" without specifying the number of arbitrators or the mode of appointment, delays can arise when parties disagree on the composition of the tribunal.

In summary, while Indian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach in dealing with pathological arbitration clauses, parties should ensure precision in drafting to avoid unnecessary litigation and procedural challenges. Clearly specifying institutional rules, the number of arbitrators, the seat, and a workable appointment mechanism are critical steps in drafting a robust arbitration clause.

24. How is the evolving legal framework for arbitration in India shaping the country's position as a preferred arbitration hub in the global arena?

Over the years, India has made significant strides in creating a robust and efficient arbitration framework. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with its subsequent amendments, reflects the country's commitment to adopting international best practices and facilitating a pro-arbitration regime. The judiciary's progressive stance and legislative reforms have strengthened the foundation of arbitration, making it a preferred method of dispute resolution for both domestic and international parties.

This guide has aimed to provide a structured understanding of arbitration under Indian law, addressing key procedural and substantive aspects. By exploring the nuances of arbitration agreements, tribunal powers, enforcement mechanisms, and court involvement, this guide equips legal practitioners and businesses with the knowledge to navigate arbitration confidently. As India continues to evolve as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, the key to successful dispute resolution will lie in strategic drafting, effective case management, and a thorough understanding of the legal framework.

India's arbitration landscape has undergone a remarkable transformation, establishing itself as a preferred mechanism for resolving commercial disputes both domestically and internationally. The Act of 1996, inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, provides a robust legal framework that balances party autonomy with judicial oversight. Over the years, significant legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements have streamlined arbitration procedures, reinforced the independence of arbitral tribunals, and enhanced the enforceability of arbitral awards. The introduction of provisions for expedited arbitration, the recognition of third-party funding, and the increasing role of institutional arbitration have further strengthened the arbitration ecosystem in India. Indian courts have shown a progressive approach by limiting their interference to essential procedural issues while upholding the principle of party autonomy and respecting the finality of arbitral awards.

The recognition of the "Group of Companies" doctrine, the consolidation of arbitration proceedings in related contracts, and the ability to bind non-signatories in certain circumstances reflect the judiciary's pro-arbitration stance. Furthermore, India's recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention and the Geneva Convention demonstrate the country's commitment to aligning its arbitration regime with international standards. Confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, while safeguarded under the Act, is balanced with the public's right to information in certain cases involving public interest or government entities.

The enforcement landscape has also been clarified, with limited grounds for setting aside or refusing enforcement of awards, reinforcing the finality and integrity of arbitral decisions. The judiciary's emphasis on minimal intervention, combined with the evolving case law, ensures that arbitration in India remains an efficient and reliable method of dispute resolution. However, challenges such as inconsistent enforcement of investor-state arbitration awards, uncertainty over the enforceability of punitive damages, and the need for greater consistency in judicial interpretation highlight areas for continued development. Moving forward, the continued growth of institutional arbitration, the increasing use of technology in arbitration, and greater clarity in statutory provisions are expected to further strengthen India's position as a global arbitration hub.

The key to successful arbitration in India lies in strategic drafting of arbitration agreements, careful selection of arbitrators, and a thorough understanding of the procedural and substantive aspects of the arbitration framework.

Practical Tips (Detailed)

• Draft clear, comprehensive arbitration clauses: Expressly identify the seat of arbitration, the governing law of both the contract and arbitration agreement, and whether the arbitration will be institutional or ad hoc. Clarity at the drafting stage significantly reduces later disputes over jurisdiction, curial law, and court supervision.
• Manage stamping and formal validity issues early: Where Indian law, Indian parties, or India-seated arbitration are involved, ensure that the underlying contract is appropriately stamped and executed. Although recent Supreme Court jurisprudence treats stamping defects as curable, counterparties may still raise them tactically to delay the process.
• Choose the right tribunal and procedure: Select arbitrators with experience in Indian arbitration and the relevant industry sector. Where appropriate, consider institutional rules (such as emergency arbitration, expedited procedures, or case management conferences) to control time and cost.
• Plan for interim relief and asset protection: Consider at the outset whether you may need interim measures in India such as preservation of assets, injunctions, or security for claims. Section 9 (court-ordered interim measures) and Section 17 (tribunal-ordered interim measures) can be powerful tools when strategically deployed.
• Design an enforcement-focused dispute strategy: Before initiating arbitration, map where the counterparty's assets are located and whether those jurisdictions are New York Convention reciprocating territories for India. Factor in India's approach to public policy, limitation periods, and procedural requirements so that a favourable award can be recognised and executed efficiently.

Practical Tips (Quick Preview)

• Clearly specify the seat of arbitration, governing law of the contract and arbitration agreement, and institutional rules in any contract involving India.
• Address stamping and formal validity issues at the contracting stage to avoid technical challenges to the arbitration agreement or award.
• Choose arbitrators and/or arbitral institutions with experience in Indian arbitration law and enforcement practice.
• Plan ahead for interim relief in India (for example under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) wherever assets or counterparties are located in India, even if the seat is foreign.
• Think through enforcement strategy from day one, including where assets are located and how Indian courts approach public policy and other New York Convention defences.

For more detailed, practice-focused guidance, see Practical Tips (Detailed) at the end of this document.

This Q&A compilation helps you quickly navigate India's evolving arbitration framework. Click any question below to jump directly to that section.

About the Author

Ravish is a dual-qualified lawyer and solicitor licensed to practice in India and on the roll of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (England and Wales). He specialises in international arbitration and international taxation, and holds the Advanced Diploma in International Taxation (ADIT) from the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT).

Services We Provide

• International & Domestic Arbitration – Strategic representation in high-value commercial disputes, EPC/infrastructure claims, shareholder conflicts, emergency relief, and enforcement or challenge of awards in India.
• Commercial Disputes & Litigation – End-to-end support in contract disputes, injunctions, recovery actions, business torts, and tribunal-ready documentation before courts and arbitral tribunals.
• Insolvency & Bankruptcy (IBC/NCLT) – Creditor and debtor representation, Section 7/9 filings, CIRP strategy, resolution plan negotiations, and complex NCLT litigation.
• Taxation (Direct, Indirect & International) – Advisory and litigation covering income tax, GST, customs, transfer pricing, as well as treaty-driven international tax and cross-border structuring.
• Contract Drafting, Negotiation & Risk Management – Cross-border commercial agreements, EPC contracts, MSAs/SLAs, technology and licensing documents, shareholder agreements, and long-term project contracts.
• GIFT City / IFSC Advisory – Regulatory, tax and transactional support for entities operating in or entering IFSC, including fund formation, fintech, global service centres and cross-border structuring.
• Real Estate, Development & Property Law – Due diligence, transactional documentation, RERA compliance, leasing/licensing and dispute management for residential, commercial and industrial projects.
• Employment & Labour Advisory – Employment contracts, HR policies, compliance frameworks, workforce exits, investigations, POSH matters and employment disputes.
• IP, IT & Technology Law – SaaS and software agreements, technology licensing, digital-business documentation, data protection, IP monetisation and innovation-centric contracting.

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.