Best International Commercial Arbitration – India & Abroad Lawyer

When your contract is with a party in another country, a dispute raises extra questions. Which country's courts have a say? Which law applies? Where will hearings happen, and in which language? Will an award be enforceable where the other side's assets are? International commercial arbitration exists to answer these questions in advance, through the arbitration clause.

This page is for Indian companies dealing with foreign buyers, suppliers, investors and partners, and for foreign companies with disputes against Indian parties. Under Indian law, an arbitration is an "international commercial arbitration" when at least one party is a foreign national or habitual resident, a company incorporated abroad, or a body whose central management is exercised abroad, and the dispute is commercial.

The seat chosen in the clause decides most things. If the seat is in India, the Indian Act's Part I applies, but with some differences for international cases. If the seat is abroad, the foreign law of the seat governs the process, and Indian courts come in mainly for interim relief and enforcement.

Is this your situation?

Key points about international arbitration involving India

Choosing between an Indian seat and a foreign seat

For years, many Indian companies and their foreign counterparties chose Singapore or London as the seat, worried about delays in Indian courts. That trend continues, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre remains the institution most used by Indian parties. But India-seated international arbitration has grown, helped by the 2015 and 2019 amendments, a more restrained approach by Indian courts, and institutions such as the India International Arbitration Centre, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration.

An Indian seat can make sense where the Indian party's assets are in India, the contract is performed in India, and both parties are comfortable with Indian law and procedure. Costs can be lower, especially for hearings. A foreign seat can make sense where neutrality matters to the foreign party, the transaction is global, or the parties prefer a court system with a long record of supporting arbitration.

Whether two Indian parties can choose a foreign seat was debated for years. The Supreme Court in PASL Wind Solutions v GE Power Conversion (2021) held that they may, and that the resulting award is enforced in India as a foreign award. This is a technical area; get advice before choosing.

Whatever the seat, make the clause clear. Ambiguity between "seat" and "venue" has produced years of litigation. The Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma v NHPC (2019) and J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v Rash Builders (April 2026) treated a designated "venue" as the seat in some contexts and held that the chosen seat's courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Use the word "seat".

How we handle international disputes

Time and typical cost range

International arbitrations can be costly; institution fees and arbitrators' fees are often linked to the amount in dispute and published on the institution's website. Our fees are agreed in writing at the start, stage by stage, and are not linked to the outcome.

Documents needed

Where things happen

The law that governs the contract versus the law of the seat

International arbitrations often involve three different laws. The law governing the contract decides the parties' rights and obligations; it could be Indian law, English law or Singapore law. The law of the arbitration agreement decides whether the clause is valid and what it covers. The law of the seat decides the procedure and which courts supervise.

These can all be different. A contract governed by Indian law can have a Singapore seat. Where the contract is silent on the law of the arbitration agreement, there are competing approaches; courts in England, Singapore and India have discussed whether it follows the contract's law or the seat's law. If your clause is silent, this can become a preliminary issue in the arbitration.

For Indian parties, a contract governed by Indian law with a foreign seat means the tribunal will apply Indian contract law, but the Indian courts will not supervise the arbitration and cannot set aside the award. That combination is common and generally works well.

Interim relief from Indian courts in foreign-seated cases

If the arbitration is seated abroad but the other side's assets are in India, you may need Indian courts to step in. The proviso to Section 2(2), added in 2015, allows Indian courts to grant interim relief under Section 9, assist in taking evidence under Section 27, and hear appeals on those orders, for international commercial arbitrations seated abroad, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

So a supplier with an SIAC arbitration against an Indian buyer can ask the Delhi High Court, where the buyer has assets, for an order securing the claim amount. Indian courts apply their own standards and do not simply rubber-stamp orders from the foreign tribunal. But a reasoned emergency arbitrator's order from SIAC or ICC can be persuasive.

Check whether your clause excludes Indian courts' jurisdiction over interim measures. Some clauses, read with the institution's rules, may do so. If so, relief must be sought from the tribunal or the courts of the seat.

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad), working with counsel in other jurisdictions where needed. This is what you can expect:

• Indian law and courts covered: interim relief, evidence, enforcement and challenges.
• Coordination with foreign counsel: for foreign-seated cases.
• Clear clause advice: seat, institution and law, before disputes arise.
• Remote-friendly: video meetings and hearings for clients abroad.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes in international disputes

Evidence and procedure in international cases

International arbitrations often follow practices that Indian parties used to domestic litigation may find unfamiliar. Tribunals commonly use the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence as a guide. Instead of wide-ranging discovery, each side can request specific categories of documents from the other, in a "Redfern schedule" that sets out what is requested, why, and the other side's objections. The tribunal then decides what must be produced.

Witnesses usually give their evidence in written statements, and the hearing is used mainly for cross-examination. Experts on quantum, delay or technical issues are often appointed by each party, and tribunals sometimes direct them to meet and produce a joint statement of what they agree and disagree on. Hearings are usually compressed into a week or two, with detailed written submissions before and after.

For an Indian company, the practical lesson is to start preparing early. Collect documents and identify witnesses as soon as the dispute arises, keep emails organised, and be prepared to disclose documents that are relevant even if they are unhelpful. A party that withholds documents ordered to be produced risks the tribunal drawing adverse inferences.

Currency, payments and FEMA issues

Awards in international arbitrations are usually in the currency of the contract, such as US dollars or euros. If an Indian party must pay a foreign party under an award, the payment is a current account transaction under FEMA and can generally be remitted through an authorised dealer bank, with supporting documents. Where the award involves a share transfer or investment, FEMA's pricing rules for non-resident investment may also come into play.

Indian parties sometimes argue that an award should not be enforced because the payment would breach FEMA. The Supreme Court in Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi (2020) rejected such an argument where the breach was curable by obtaining RBI permission, and held that it did not make enforcement contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. This argument rarely succeeds on its own.

Foreign parties receiving payment under an Indian award or decree should check tax withholding requirements, since payments to non-residents may attract tax deduction at source depending on the nature of the payment and any tax treaty.

Hearings, travel and costs: making it manageable

International arbitration has a reputation for being expensive, and it can be. But many of the costs are choices. A sole arbitrator is cheaper than three. A documents-only or expedited procedure, available under the SIAC, ICC and other rules for smaller claims, can shorten the case dramatically. Virtual hearings remove travel and venue costs. Agreeing early on a timetable, limits on document production and page limits for submissions keeps legal costs down.

For Indian parties, choosing an Indian institution for an India-seated case, with hearings in New Delhi or Mumbai, can reduce costs considerably compared with a foreign seat, while still giving the foreign party an institution and procedure it can trust.