India: Fifteen Years On From Bhatia: The Indian Government Looks At How To Institutionalise Arbitration In The Subcontinent

Last Updated: 4 August 2017

In 2002, the Indian Supreme Court decided, in Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA1 ('Bhatia') that Indian courts had exclusive jurisdiction to test the validity of an arbitral award made in India even when the proper law of the contract was the law of another country. The court interpreted section 2 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the 'Act') to mean that Part I of the Act applied even to arbitrations seated outside India, thereby giving the Indian courts broad scope to intervene in foreign arbitrations. This was widely regarded as a low point for arbitration in India. Fast forward to January 2017 and the Indian Government is trying to promote India as an arbitration hub, and its courts are generally seen to be taking a pro-arbitration stance. India is now clearly focused on becoming an attractive jurisdiction for foreign investment. Hand in hand with this, its legislators and courts are taking steps to make India an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. This article explores some of the key steps along the road of India's transformation, 15 years on from Bhatia.

Bhatia overruled

In 2008, the effect of Bhatia was extended in other court judgments to permit Indian courts to set aside foreign arbitral awards (Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services Ltd2) and to appoint arbitrators in arbitrations seated outside India (Indtel Technical Services Pvt Ltd v WS Atkins Plc3). These cases were widely criticised for creating uncertainty and delay in arbitrations seated elsewhere but with some connection to India. It became standard practice to expressly exclude the application of Part I of the Act in arbitration agreements in order to avoid the effect of this line of cases.

In 2012, in Bharat Aluminium v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services4, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court overruled these controversial decisions. The court in Bharat held that Part I of the Act only applies to arbitrations seated within India and therefore, Indian courts cannot order interim relief in support of foreign seated arbitrations5. The court further ruled that awards rendered in foreign seated arbitrations are only subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts when they are to be enforced in India under Part II of the Act. This set the tone for reduced intervention by the Indian courts in arbitrations seated outside India. The decision reflects the principles of certainty, commerciality and party autonomy. Arguably, India has never looked back.

Amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996

In 2015, the Indian Government amended the Act in line with proposals made by the Law Commission and stakeholders (the '2015 Act'). The reforms are clearly aimed at allaying the concerns of those who had been wary of choosing India as a seat of arbitration. Some of the key changes implemented by the 2015 Act are as follows.

Interim measures

The powers of the Indian courts to grant interim measures, such as injunctions, have been reformed. The Indian courts may now grant interim measures in support of arbitrations outside India. If an Indian court grants interim measures before an arbitration has commenced, the arbitration must start within 90 days (or such further time as the court orders), after which the interim measure ceases to be in force. The jurisdiction of the courts to grant interim measures after the tribunal has been appointed is limited to circumstances in which tribunal-ordered interim measures would not be 'efficacious'. An interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal seated in India is enforceable in the same manner as a court order.

Public policy

'Public policy' is no longer a broad ground to resist enforcement in India of an international commercial arbitration award or foreign award. A refusal of enforcement is limited to circumstances in which there has been fraud or corruption, or contravention of 'the fundamental policy of Indian law' or 'the most basic notions of morality or justice'.

High court

Applications arising out of international commercial arbitration and applications to enforce foreign awards must now be made to a high court and not to a lower court, which may be in a remote part of the country, and where the judges may not be familiar with arbitration.


The high courts also have powers to set aside awards made in India where arbitrators have failed to comply with new requirements for disclosure of interests; delegate the appointment of arbitrators in ad hoc arbitration to an arbitration institution; limit the fees charged by arbitrators for delays attributable to the arbitral tribunal; award costs in any court application arising out of an arbitration; and allow enforcement of an award made in India to proceed, even if there is a challenge to that award.

Twelve-month time limit

Perhaps the most striking reform was the imposition of a 12-month time limit on arbitrators sitting in India for issuing an award. This may be extended for six months by party agreement, and then further by the court. This arguably puts parties at the mercy of court scheduling, which the reforms are directed at avoiding. Parties to an Indian arbitration may also agree to follow a fasttrack procedure that must be completed within six months.

While the wisdom of all the reforms has been debated, what is clear is that they aim to achieve the worthy objectives of increasing certainty, reducing costs, streamlining procedures, limiting delay, making it easier to arbitrate in India and obtaining assistance from the Indian courts in support of foreign seated arbitrations.

Also introduced in 2015, The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, provides for the swift disposal of arbitrationrelated court proceedings by establishing special commercial courts at the district level, and commercial divisions in the high courts to deal with such matters.

Pro-arbitration jurisprudence

Following the sea change brought about by Bharat, and in line with the Indian Government's efforts to promote arbitration, recent decisions from the Indian courts evidence a pro-arbitration approach:

  • In August 2016, in Sidharth Gupta and Ors v Getit Infoservices Private Limited6, the Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench, dismissed a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement under the Indian Companies Act and referred the parties to arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in accordance with the arbitration clause in the relevant shareholders' agreement.
  • In Eros International Media Limited v Telemax Links India Pvt Ltd (decided on 12 April 2016), the Bombay High Court held that copyright infringement claims are arbitrable.
  • In July 2016, the Delhi High Court rejected forum non conveniens arguments in overturning a single judge decision restraining McDonald's from invoking an arbitration clause with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) in a joint venture agreement with a local partner; the division bench set aside the injunction granted by the single judge, thus allowing McDonald's to resume arbitration proceedings7.
  • In February 2017, a Delhi High Court justice refused to set aside an arbitral award won by investors against the promoters of a cancelled Indian information technology economic zone, concluding that the promoters waited too long to challenge the arbitrators themselves, and that the investors did not breach their end of the bargain8. The promoters did not challenge the qualifications of the tribunal until more than a year after their investors launched International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) proceedings against them in 2010. Justice Muralidhar ruled that the ICC was right to reject the challenges first brought up in May 2011.

These are just a few examples to demonstrate the dramatically changed view of the Indian courts in relation to domestic and international arbitrations.

Overhauling of the bilateral investment treaty regime

India has signed bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with 83 countries. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), India was one of the top 15 most frequent respondent states to investment treaty arbitration in 2015. As a result of this, in December 2015, the cabinet approved a new model BIT (the 'Model BIT'). In 2016, India gave notice to 57 countries (including the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Sweden) seeking termination of BITs whose initial duration had either expired or will expire soon. For the remaining countries with similar treaties whose initial duration will expire from July 2017 onwards (such as China, Finland, Bangladesh and Mexico), India has asked for joint statements to clarify ambiguities in treaty texts to avoid expansive interpretations by arbitration tribunals. Through this process, the Indian Government intends to replace existing BITs with a new set of treaties9. India's Model BIT will provide the framework for new negotiations with trading partners and current BIT counterparties.

The most debated new provisions in the Model BIT are: (1) the narrower definition of 'investment'; (2) the exclusion of taxation; (3) the absence of the most favoured nation (MFN) clause; and (4) the requirement that the investor exhaust all local remedies before it can proceed to international arbitration. India has abandoned its more expansive 'assets-based' definition and adopted an 'enterprise-based' definition of investment, which essentially narrows the scope of protected investments and reduces India's potential liability. The Model BIT states that the measures of local governments and taxation measures will be outside the purview of the BIT, no doubt a result of recent claims by companies such as Vodafone and Cairn Energy. India's Model BIT does not contain the MFN clause; probably as a consequence of the White Industries case in which India was found to have violated its BIT with Australia, which contained a broad MFN provision. The Model BIT also asks investors to voluntarily incorporate standards of corporate social responsibility. This is undoubtedly positive but not framed as a mandatory requirement. A new clause on transparency requests that parties ensure that all the laws, regulations, procedures and administrative rulings of general application regarding matters covered in the BIT are published or made available so that interested persons can become acquainted with them.

Time will tell whether the Model BIT strikes the right balance between attracting and safeguarding foreign investment while protecting public interest. It also remains to be seen, however, how successful India will be in having future BITs or investment chapters conform to the Model BIT. This will no doubt depend on who it is negotiating with and their relative bargaining power. What is clear is that India, a relative latecomer to the world of BITs, now sees investment treaties as vital to the country's development. It has learned from the investment disputes in which it has been involved and its framework for dealing with foreign investors is evolving.

Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration

India's first home-grown international arbitration centre, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) opened its doors in October 201610. It was set up through a joint initiative between the Government of Maharashtra and the domestic and international business and legal communities in order to promote the use of institutional arbitration in India11. Prior to this, the closest major arbitration centre was in Singapore. According to its annual report, the highest number of case filings in 2015 at the SIAC was generated by parties from India. At MCIA's inauguration, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said, 'A crucial factor to establish ease of doing business and attract foreign direct investments is a healthy arbitration resolving ecosystem. In this, time and space are key. A centre in Mumbai will take care of both these factors'12. The centre boasts a dedicated secretariat, high-tech hearing rooms, with simultaneous transcription services and a board of leading international and domestic arbitration practitioners. On a related note, in 2016, LCIA India withdrew its physical presence from India following market feedback that Indian parties were content to continue to use LCIA rules, and owing to insufficient adopters of LCIA India clauses to justify a presence on the ground. Established, with 'the idea of bringing London quality to Indian parties at Indian rates'13, LCIA India was only in operation in India for seven years. Nonetheless, it is likely that, through its presence, its profile-raising initiatives, and the conferences and events it organised, LCIA India did raise awareness of the benefits of institutional arbitration in India.

Indian Government committee on how to institutionalise international arbitration in the subcontinent

On 29 December 2016, it was announced that a committee set up by the Indian Government and chaired by retired Supreme Court judge, Justice BN Srikrishna, would consider ways to institutionalise international arbitration in the subcontinent, in line with the ambitions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The committee is made up of judges, lawyers, legal policy-makers, and representatives of industry and government. It was given 90 days to analyse the effectiveness of the present arbitration mechanism; review the facilities, resources, funding and workings of existing arbitral institutions; assess skill gaps; and evaluate the efficacy of the current legal framework for arbitration, according to a broad mandate outlined by a statement of the Ministry of Law and Justice14. According to the statement, '[t]he Government of India has laid emphasis on making Arbitration a preferred mode for settlement of commercial disputes'. The committee is called on to suggest measures to institutionalise national and international arbitration, and make India a 'hub of international commercial arbitration', including recommending revisions to existing institutional rules.15

In early March, the committee produced a working paper identifying the following challenges to be addressed: the misconception that institutional arbitration is more expensive and inflexible than ad hoc arbitration, a historic lack of government support for institutional arbitration, years of excessive judicial intervention, a lack of experienced arbitrators for appointment to tribunals, the absence of an arbitration bar of local and foreign lawyers and, crucially, a lack of information as to key performance indicators in respect of existing arbitral institutions.

The paper concludes that there is insufficient data available to analyse and make recommendations to facilitate the growth of arbitral institutions in India, and so the paper attaches a questionnaire to be completed by the existing institutions and one for other stakeholders, inviting suggestions for reform. The committee invited comments from the public and questionnaire responses by 7 April 2017. Data collected in response to the questionnaires is intended to assist in understanding why several Indian arbitral institutions are not 'functioning effectively'16. Nonetheless, the working paper recommends the creation of an autonomous national regulatory body to set minimum standards for arbitral institutions, the creation of an arbitrator accreditation body, collaboration with international arbitral institutions to develop training for lawyers and law students with a view to the creation of an arbitration bar in India, fixing the judicial roster to permit specialisation in arbitration (to the exclusion of regularly hearing other types of matters), the consideration of further amendments to the Act to deal with ambiguities and keep pace with international arbitration law and practice, the consideration of legislation to promote India as a seat for international arbitration (eg, taking the lead from Singapore and opening the legal market to foreign-qualified lawyers, offering tax incentives), government incentives for developing infrastructure for institutional arbitration and the inclusion of clauses providing for Indian institutional arbitration in government contracts.

Steps in the right direction

The Modi Government wants to make it easier for foreign parties to do business in India. Part of this process means making arbitration in India and with Indian parties easier. India's story shows that a key step in the nation's economic progress is making it an international and domestic arbitrationfriendly jurisdiction, supported by institutions, a sophisticated legal system and a commercial judiciary. This present push to promote arbitration, spearheaded by current and former members of the judiciary, is in stark contrast to the suspicious and heavyhanded approach of the Indian bench less than a decade ago. Less than ten years after its Supreme Court decided it had the power to set aside foreign arbitral awards, India is looking to make arbitration the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for commercial parties.


1 (2002) 4 SCC 105.

2 [2008] 4 SCC 190.

3 [2008] 10 SCC 308.

4 Civil Appeal No 7019 of 2005.

5 The decision was held to apply to arbitration agreements concluded from that date onwards.

6 (CA 128/ C – II/ 2014 in CP 64 (ND) 2014).

7 McDonalds India Private Limited v Vikram Bakshi and Ors. FAO(OS) 9/2015.

8 Shakti Nath And Ors v Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investments, case number 154/2016, before the High Court of Delhi.

9 Recently, the European Union has urged India to extend by at least six months the BITs it has with member countries. India's Minister of Commerce and Industry stated that India will not give extensions and the Indian Government will let them lapse: Nayanima Basu, 'EU Pushes India to Extend Investment Pacts by Six Months' Business Line (New Delhi, 20 February 2017) by-6-months-trade-pacts-with-membernations/ article9551341.ece accessed 9 May 2017. In other words, fresh investments coming from European nations will not have legal protection under a BIT.

10 Shubhangi Khapre, 'First international arbitration centre comes up in Mumbai' The Indian Express (Mumbai, 9 October 2016) arbitration-centre-comes-up-in-mumbai-3072913/ accessed 9 May 2017.

11 SIAC Annual Report 2015.

12 See number 10 above.

13 Comment by then Registrar, Ajay Thomas still-to-get-its-10th-dispute-resolves-hiranandani-feud-withkaranjawala- pepper-hamilton-20130808-3898 accessed 9 May 2017.

14 Government of India Press Information Bureau Ministry of Law and Justice statement 29 December 2016.

15 All of the over 30 arbitral institutions in India were included in the review, although it is noted that the MCIA is the only institution whose rules, at the time of the review, reflect the most recent amendments to the Act, and it does not suffer from some of the more obvious deficiencies identified by the committee, eg, lack of information in relation to caseload, functioning and rules or a lack of facilities.

16 Working Paper on Institutional Arbitration Reforms in India: 2.

This update is authored by Clasis Law, Clyde & Co's associated firm in India

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
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