India: Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Business contracts define commercial relationships, but even carefully negotiated agreements can become sources of disputes over payments, deliverables, termination, or interpretation of terms. Understanding common contractual pitfalls and implementing proper documentation practices can help businesses protect their interests and reduce the risk of costly disagreements.

Real estate disputes in India can be addressed through three primary forums: RERA, NCDRC, and NCLT. Each forum offers distinct mechanisms for homebuyers seeking redressal, from regulatory compliance and consumer protection to insolvency proceedings. Understanding the jurisdiction, scope, and appropriate application of each forum is crucial for effective dispute resolution in real estate transactions.

Argus Partners provides quick updates on various legal and regulatory developments across multiple practice areas including corporate law, finance, insolvency, arbitration, and technology. These brief snapshots help legal professionals stay informed about recent changes in Indian law without requiring in-depth analysis.

Foreign parties contracting with Indian companies usually choose a seat outside India, and usually assume that the choice puts Indian courts out of the picture. It does not.

Multiple appointments of the same arbitrator for a single corporate group can lead to the appearance of a conflict, even if none exists. This blog takes a critical look at disclosure obligations, institutional rules and specific appointments in construction, infrastructure, insurance and energy arbitration under Indian, English law.

Mumbai faces a striking contradiction: a rent-control law designed to protect both landlords and tenants has, through decades of administrative inertia, let down both. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Act) created a fast-track framework for resolving possession disputes, bypassing ordinary civil-court delays. Yet enforcement remained fragmented and slow.

Arbitration has long been heralded as the faster, more flexible alternative to litigation. Parties choose it to avoid the procedural labyrinths and backlog of national courts, expecting a swift resolution delivered by subject-matter experts. Yet in practice, arbitration often fails to live up to this promise. Tribunals may take months, or even years, after the close of hearings to deliver their awards.

Document production in arbitration has traditionally been a contentious and resource-intensive phase, particularly in complex international commercial disputes. As arbitration solidifies its role as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes, the imperative for efficient, transparent, and predictable disclosure procedures has become increasingly evident. In the Indian context, the arbitral landscape has undergone significant reform in recent years, with the enactment and amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeking to align domestic practices with internationally recognized standards.

An analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, examining the consequences of fabricated AI-generated precedents for judicial discipline, professional responsibility and the rule of law.