India: Emerging Issues In The Arbitration Regime – India & Singapore

Last Updated: 12 January 2017
Article by Mahip Singh Sikarwar

Most Read Contributor in India, December 2018


With the introduction of the recent amendment of 2015 to the arbitration laws in India, the regime of Arbitrability has taken a sharp turn and has made the future prospects look bright for Arbitration in India. It is an attempt to make India a preferred seat of arbitration for Indians as well as foreign parties. In a quest to compete with the current arbitration seat attractions like Singapore and London, this change in the Indian arbitration laws is being looked upon with a lot of hope by the MNC's planning to invest in India.

India has not been the only country to bring about some steep amends in the arbitration regime to assist the "ease of doing business". In order to maintain its top position as the most preferred seat of arbitration, Singapore has also amended its Rules of Arbitration (SIAC Rules) to such extents so as to bring out some sheer changes in its laws. In the following paragraphs we will read about the changes made in both arbitration regimes of India and Singapore and issues related with them.


The government of India has been trying to make the arbitration regime of the country more flexible. It has taken a lot of measures to make it happen but was not able to realize a attractive business environment to its satisfaction. In 2001 it tried to amend the arbitration laws of the country but failed. Then again it tried in 2010, but even that attempt was aborted. Finally on October 23, 2015 an ordinance was promulgated by the President incorporating the essence of major rulings passed in the two decades, inclusive of the recommendations of the 246th Law Commission Report. Subsequently the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill 2015, was passed in the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2015 and Rajya Sabha with minor additions to the amendments introduced by the ordinance. Eventually the Presidents signed it on December 31st, 2015 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into effect, from October 23, 2015.

Even with the recent amendment which did bring some stark change in the arbitration laws of India, a lot of issues have been still left unanswered. The issues of Indian parties having foreign seats and arbitration in case of oppression and mismanagement within a company are matters which are still suffering from conflict of opinions of various high courts.


It is undeniable that this current amendment in the Arbitration Act has cemented a relatively easier path for International Commercial Arbitration to take place with seat in India and shows bright prospects of India becoming an arbitration hub for future arbitrations but there are still some issues which have been left out from the amendment and which would impact the future applicability and efficiency of these amendments and their objective.

Section 44(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, after the Amendment, requires that the foreign award not only be made in a reciprocating territory, but also that the reciprocating territory be notified by the Central Government in Official Gazette. With only about 50 (fifty) countries having been notified as reciprocating territory, the scope of enforcing foreign arbitral awards is significantly reduced. The Government should either notify most countries in the Official Gazette, or do away with the requirement of Section 44(b) that provides for notifying reciprocating territories in the Official Gazette.1

In order to provide statutory recognition to the "emergency arbitrator" as provided under some institutional rules, the Law Commission Report had recommended the addition of "emergency arbitrator" to the definition of "arbitral tribunal" under Section 2(d) of the Arbitration Act. The concept of "emergency arbitrator" has been recognized by most international arbitration rules and has gained popularity for its effectiveness. The recommendations made by the Law Commission Report in this regard have not been accepted and this is a significant omission that is likely to impact arbitrations in India.



Madras High Court in a case2 has ruled that the language used in the Section 26 of the Amendment Act only refers to arbitral proceedings and not court proceedings due to deletion of the language "in relation to." Section 26 of the Amendment Act is not applicable to the stage post arbitral proceedings.

However, the Calcutta High Court in has given a contrary view, and held that the Amendment Act will not apply and Section 34 petitions in case of arbitration proceedings commenced prior to October 23, 2015, would act as automatic stay.3


Even though this issue has been addressed by a number of High Courts in the past, there is still no clarity on ability of two Indian parties to choose a foreign seat of arbitration. In a case4 the Bombay High Court expressed a view that two Indian parties choosing a foreign seat and a foreign law governing the arbitration agreement could be considered to be opposed to public policy of the country whereas in the case of Sasan Power Ltd v. North America Coal Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.5, the Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that two Indian parties may conduct arbitration in a foreign seat under English law.

However, one must be wary of the ruling in TDM Infrastructure,6 wherein the court ruled that two Indian parties could not derogate from Indian law by agreeing to conduct arbitration with a foreign seat and a foreign law.


A landmark judgment on this issue was delivered by the Bombay High Court in Rakesh Malhotra v. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra,7 wherein the court held that disputes regarding oppression and mismanagement cannot be arbitrated, and must be adjudicated upon by the judicial authority itself. However, in case the judicial authority finds that the petition is mala fide or vexatious and is an attempt to avoid an arbitration clause, the dispute must be referred to arbitration. Arguably, this could have an unintended impact on the prima facie standard in section 8, as amended and introduced by the Amendment Act.



The new multi-contract and multi-party provisions in the SIAC Rules 2016 are three-pronged. They contain mechanisms for regulating (i) disputes arising out of multiple contracts; (ii) joinder of additional parties; and (iii) consolidation of several arbitral proceedings.

Rule 6 allows, amongst others, filing of a single Notice of Arbitration in relation to disputes arising out of multiple contracts. The Registrar is to treat such a Notice of Arbitration as a request to consolidate disputes under the relevant arbitration agreements.

Rule 7 allows joinder of additional parties prior to the tribunal constitution and empowers the SIAC Court to decide the joinder applications. The SIAC Court retains the power to revoke any arbitral appointment made prior to its decision on a joinder.

Rule 8 introduces consolidation to the SIAC arbitration, its mechanisms being largely in line with institutional best practices worldwide. The SIAC Court is empowered to decide consolidation applications prior to the tribunal constitution. The SIAC Court is likely to grant consolidation request if (i) all parties agree to consolidation; or (ii) the claims are made under the same arbitration agreement; or (iii) the claims are made under compatible arbitration agreements, and if the disputes arise out of the same legal relationship or out of the same transaction or series of transactions.8


The provision which deserves a special mention is the one regarding early dismissal of claims and defenses. Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules provides a party with the right to file an objection to dismiss a claim on the basis that the claim is "manifestly without legal merit" or "manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction". If an early dismissal application is filed, the tribunal is first to decide whether the application may proceed.

With this new provision, the architecture of the SIAC Rules 2016 is such that it now offers a three-step objection process. First, Rule 28.1 grants the SIAC Registrar and the SIAC Court the screening power to determine prima facie whether the arbitration shall proceed. Second, under Rule 28, a party may file jurisdictional objections within 14 days after the matter that "manifestly" falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction has arisen (or no later than in its statement of defence). And finally, the objecting party may have a shot at the same objection through the early dismissal mechanism.9

The problem with the three-step objection process is that it is effectively a "no risk" proposition for the respondent. The respondent may make a screening objection and, if it fails, go on to file a preliminary jurisdictional objection and if that fails, an early dismissal application on the same grounds. That is because presumably, none of these three mechanisms would result in a decision that would have res judicata effect.


One of the most significant changes brought about by these amendments to the SIAC Rules is delocalizing the Singapore seat and taking it to a global level. According to Rule 21 of the SIAC Rules 2016, Singapore is no longer the default seat of arbitration. The SIAC Rules Drafting Committee has introduced this amendment in an attempt to elevate Singapore above the earlier "local" default preference for Singapore as a seat. This change ensures a more global reach for SIAC, and brings Singapore in line with a number of other "delocalized" arbitral institutions, such as the ICC and the SCC. A minor speed bump in this regard is that because the SIAC Rules 2016 have lost the default seat provision, parties may find themselves locked in a dispute before the tribunal as to where the seat should be unless they specify the seat in their arbitration clauses.10


Henceforth, the changes in the arbitration regimes throughout the well known centers of Arbitration and India are a ray of hope for parties stuck in delayed arbitration procedures and gives a brighter prospect of having expedited arbitral proceedings all over the world with minimal costs of procedure. Be it the Singapore International Arbitration Centre or the LCIA each institutional arbitration centre is competing to become the first preference of parties entering into arbitration agreement. With the recent amendment of 2015 to the Arbitration Act 1940, it seems India might be entering the race soon enough to be the preference of parties entering into arbitration agreement.


1 1

2 New Tripur Area Development Corporation Limited v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors

3 Electrosteel Castings Limited v. Reacon Engineers (India) Private Ltd.

4 Addhar Mercantile Private Limited v. Shree Jagdamba Agrico Exports Pvt. Ltd.Judgment in Arbitration Petition No. 1710/2015 dated January 14, 2016

5 Judgment in First Appeal No. 310/2015 dated September 11, 2015.

6 TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. UE Development India Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 271

7 Rakesh Malhotra v. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra, (2015) 2 CompLJ 288 (Bom).

8 Rule 21 of the SIAC Rules 2016

9 Ibid.

10 Id.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions