Arbitration & ADR
Arbitration counsel from clause drafting to award enforcement, including Section 9 reliefs, tribunal proceedings, and Section 34 challenges.
Arbitration is now the default forum for high-value commercial disputes in India. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended in 2015, 2019, and 2021, has been narrowed at every limb where it once invited court intervention. Section 34 has been read down. Section 9 has been routinised. The pro-arbitration jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has settled the seat-versus-venue debate, the Perkins Eastman principle, and the limits of public policy. The firm advises across the full arc — the clause that is drafted in 2024, the Section 9 application that is filed in 2026 when the matter goes wrong, the award that is delivered in 2028, and the Section 34 petition that follows.
What the firm does in this practice
Arbitration clause review and drafting
Pre-contract clause architecture — seat, venue, governing law, institutional rules, number of arbitrators, language, emergency arbitrator, multi-tier provisions, and the carve-outs that determine whether a clause survives a Perkins Eastman challenge.
Section 9 interim relief proceedings
Pre-arbitral, during-arbitration, and post-award reliefs before the High Courts. Asset freezes, interim injunctions, status-quo orders, and security for amount in dispute. Section 9 is now an active forum even for foreign-seated arbitrations.
Section 17 tribunal-level reliefs
Reliefs at the constitution stage and during pleadings. Section 17 orders are now enforceable as orders of the court under Section 17(2), which has materially shifted negotiating leverage in mid-arbitration commercial disputes.
Tribunal proceedings — pleadings, evidence, hearings, awards
Statement of claim, statement of defence, list of dates, evidence affidavits, cross-examination, written submissions, and oral hearings. Both ad-hoc and institutional — SIAC, ICC, LCIA, MCIA, DIAC, and ICA proceedings.
Section 34 challenges — both sides
Petitions to set aside awards on the narrow Section 34 grounds, including patent illegality, fraud, and the residual public-policy ground. Equally, defending awards under the post-Ssangyong framework, where the bar for setting aside has been progressively raised.
Section 36 award enforcement
Execution of domestic awards, enforcement of foreign awards under Part II Chapter I (New York Convention) and Chapter II (Geneva Convention), including the residual public-policy and arbitrability defences.
Pre-institution mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023
Mediation as a procedural prerequisite for certain commercial disputes under the 2023 Act, settlement agreement enforcement under Section 27, and the interface between mediation and downstream arbitration or commercial-court litigation.
The view from the firm
Arbitration is sold as faster, cheaper, and more confidential than litigation. In Indian practice, it is more often slower, costlier, and noisier than the parties expected. The reason is almost never the law. It is the clause. A clause that is unclear on seat, that is silent on emergency arbitrator, that does not match the institutional rules invoked, that contains a multi-tier obligation without a meaningful step process — that clause becomes the litigation, before the arbitration even begins. The firm spends materially more time on clause drafting than its overall arbitration mandate would suggest, because the cheapest arbitration is the one whose clause was correctly drafted three years before the dispute.
Section 34 is now narrow. Practitioners who continue to file Section 34 petitions on what would have been valid grounds in 2010 lose. The Supreme Court has steadily withdrawn the room for second-guessing arbitral decisions. The firm’s view of any post-award position begins with a candid assessment: is there a Section 34 ground that survives the post-Ssangyong, post-Vidya Drolia, post-DMRC line of authority. If there is, it is filed. If there is not, the matter moves to enforcement strategy.
For foreign parties and Indian counterparties to cross-border contracts, the seat is the single most consequential drafting decision. Singapore, London, Dubai, and Mumbai each carry a distinct procedural and supervisory law. The firm coordinates with foreign co-counsel where the matter requires it, and conducts the Indian-law portion of multi-jurisdictional arbitrations — including Section 9 reliefs in support of foreign-seated arbitrations, which the 2015 amendment expressly preserved.
Deeper references
- Arbitration clause — why every commercial contract needs one
- Arbitration clause drafting — best practice
- Seat vs venue — why the distinction is critical
- Perkins Eastman principle
- Multi-tier clauses — drafting to survive challenge
- Section 34 challenge — grounds and limitation
- How to challenge an award under Section 34
- Supreme Court 2024–25 — narrowing of Section 34
- Section 36 enforcement
- Emergency arbitrators — enforceability
- Mediation Act 2023
- Arbitration and insolvency — the moratorium intersection
- Anti-suit injunctions
This page is informational. It is not advertisement or solicitation. The firm does not offer free consultations or invite engagement through this page. For correspondence relating to a specific matter, Use of this site is subject to the Bar Council of India Rule 36 framework.