IAW, 2025 Day 3: Mumbai
Opening Remark – Justice Kamal Rashmi Khata, Bombay High Court
“At the heart of arbitration lies something more fundamental. The confidence the parties place in the Arbitrators who will decide their disputes. Without that confidence, this system cannot truly survive.”
Justice Kamal Rashmi Khata opened Day 3 of the India Arbitration Week 2025 at Mumbai with an enlightening address. He started by spotlighting the evolving practice of interviewing arbitrators in India, a theme both timely and critical for the maturing arbitration ecosystem. He differentiated the judge-assignment of litigation from the unique party autonomy of arbitration, highlighting that, unlike in court, parties in arbitration play a decisive role in selecting their decision-maker. Justice Khata urged the Indian arbitration community to move beyond the “don’t ask, don’t tell” tradition and embrace transparent, structured interactions with prospective arbitrators for confidence-building.
He noted the remarkable progress made: MCIA’s 48% jump in new cases in 2024, supportive court judgments strengthening party autonomy, and a shift towards appointing subject-matter specialist arbitrators from diverse fields. However, he emphasized that laws and institutions alone are not enough, for the true strength of arbitration rests on the confidence parties place in the individuals resolving their disputes. As such, Justice Khata endorsed limited pre-appointment interviews, following IBA and CIArb guidelines, to verify independence, expertise, and availability, without encroaching on the merits of the case.
Justice Khata stressed the need for “balance” in ensuring that party autonomy does not undermine the integrity of arbitral proceedings. He explained how statutory safeguards under the Arbitration Act, like mandatory disclosure requirements and schedules determining eligibility and conflicts, facilitate responsible arbitrator selection. Institutions like MCIA and CIArb, he said, are raising India’s standards through training and best-practice frameworks.
He closed by calling for arbitration to become a “trusted, transparent, efficient and competent” parallel pillar to litigation: “If we approach this practice with moderation, transparency and professionalism, we can ensure that arbitration in India continues to grow as a trusted, efficient and equal pillar of dispute resolution.”
Session I: Are You Interviewing Your Arbitrator? Changing Mindset in the Indian Landscape
The first session of Day 3 at India ADR Week Mumbai was hosted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and moderated by Mr. Nusrat Hassan (Managing Partner, Dentons Link Legal). The session gathered an expert panel: Mr. Kunal Vajani (Joint Managing Partner, Fox Mandal), Ms. Sushmita Gandhi (Partner, Trilegal), Mr. Samir Hussain (General Counsel, Aditya Birla Capital), and Ms. Irvinder Bakshi (Barrister and Chartered Arbitrator, Principal Consultant, KSB Law Consultants, London). The panel explored the evolving practice and cultural significance of interviewing arbitrators in India and highlighted why this conversation is crucial for enhancing confidence, diversity, and subject expertise in arbitration appointments.
Opening the session, Mr. Hussain recounted an experience in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” led to regret after an arbitrator’s interpretive approach diverged from commercial expectations. He noted that, historically, Indian parties have deferred to seniority, which is reminiscent of the Panchayati Raj system, more than verified expertise, and that amendments since 2015 now impose a duty to ask and tell, with real risks of defective awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Mr. Hussain proposed the “WIAC” formula for arbitrator selection: Wisdom and experience, Information on subject knowledge, Ability in case management, and Competence in time management. He cautioned that it is extremely critical that both parties seek information, and the arbitrator provides them this information.
Ms. Gandhi examined the limits of institutional vetting, stressing the importance of parties directly assessing arbitrators’ availability, sectoral expertise, and procedural fit, especially for technical fields like IP or construction. She warned against crossing the line from suitability into discussion of case merits, saying that parties should restrict themselves to asking only those questions to an Arbitrator which relate to how much the Arbitrator can do for the mandate as an Arbitrator and not as a Lawyer.
Ms. Bakshi added an international perspective, explaining the evolution from institutional “beauty parades” to structured interviews, and recommended to always “disclose, disclose, disclose,” to protect integrity and manage perceptions of impartiality. She warned that extended or ex parte interviews could risk both perceived and actual bias.
The panel discussed the need to balance the parties’ interest to know about the Arbitrator with the requirement of confidentiality and impartiality. They also debated data and digital analytics’ role in arbitrator selection. While supportive of increased transparency and data usage, they warned against “TripAdvisor”-style reviews that may incentivize popularity over competence or precipitate uninformed “popularity contests.” The importance of fostering diversity in appointments, beyond gender-inclusivity to include cultural and experiential diversity, was emphasized as enriching arbitral decision-making, though merit-based selection remained paramount.
The panel recommended greater familiarity with CIArb and IBA guidelines on arbitrator interviews and party ethics as frameworks to professionalize and standardize the process. Formalization of best practices, ethical training, and clear boundaries were urged to ensure interviews remain transparent, fair, and free from undue influence.
In conclusion, this session provided a robust blueprint for shifting India’s arbitration culture from passive acceptance to active, informed arbitrator selection. The careful balance of party engagement, institutional safeguards, ethics, and professionalism is vital for India’s aspiration to become a leading global arbitration hub.
Session II: Focus on the Client: In-House Counsel’s Role and Expectations from the Arbitral Process
The second session of Day 3 at India ADR Week Mumbai was moderated by Mr. Gregory A. Litt (Partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP), and featured an eminent panel of senior in-house counsels: Dr. Akhil Prasad (Group General Counsel at Boeing India); Mr. Amber Gupta (SVP & Head Legal at National Stock Exchange); Mr. Ravi Mahto (Assistant Vice President at Tata Sons); and Ms. Tapasi Sil (General Counsel, Onshore Wind- South Asia at GE Vernova). The session explored the evolving expectations and roles of in-house legal teams in managing arbitration processes for large domestic and international corporations.
Dr. Prasad reflected on the remarkable transformation of India’s arbitration landscape over the past three decades, highlighting how Supreme Court judgments have enhanced recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India. He discussed challenges faced in convincing global management teams about the capability and quality of Indian arbitration, particularly addressing concerns about court interventions and arbitrator standards. Dr. Prasad emphasized foreign companies’ preference for established institutional arbitral forums in new service contracts and joint ventures, contrasting them with the reliance on global templates for sales contracts.
Mr. Gupta delineated the heightened significance of arbitration in capital markets under evolving regulations like those from SEBI, noting the stock exchanges’ pioneering role in implementing Online Dispute Resolution mechanisms for timely resolution of brokerage and shareholder disputes. He recounted the important clarity provided by landmark rulings such as the BALCO decision distinguishing domestic and international arbitration frameworks, and applauded the consistency deriving from India’s adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law principles. He emphasized the strategic differences in managing ad hoc and institutional arbitrations, articulating a preference for institutional processes in confidential, high-value transactions due to their procedural efficiencies.
Mr. Mahto’s perspective highlighted the proactive, anticipatory nature of transactional legal work in large conglomerates like Tata Sons, where arbitration clauses are rigorously stress-tested through scenario mapping to anticipate potential disputes before they arise. He advocated early involvement of dispute lawyers alongside transactional counsel during contract negotiations to ensure robust drafting and better risk mitigation. He also noted the evolving mindset towards institutional arbitration even for domestic disputes, driven by considerations such as court friendliness in various Indian jurisdictions.
The panel discussed the critical decision-making processes around when in-house teams engage external counsel, emphasizing factors such as case complexity, transaction type, and stakes involved. Dr. Prasad described the value of early external legal advice as a sounding board and in dispute validation, sharing examples where diplomacy with counterpart General Counsels helped resolve potential disputes without escalation. Mr. Gupta noted international counterparts’ tendency to involve external counsel at early stages of potential conflicts for strategic documentation and evidence purposes, contrasted with a more reactive Indian approach.
Addressing enforcement and efficiency, the panel highlighted the growing judicial support for institutional arbitration, with Mr. Gupta underscoring the benefits of Secretary-managed timelines and cost penalties against delays, contrasted with ad hoc arbitration’s propensity for prolonged proceedings. The importance of sincere good faith cooperation among parties to avoid tactical delays was emphasized to uphold arbitration’s efficacy.
Closing audience questions related to criteria influencing in-house counsel decisions to settle disputes or escalate to arbitration, where factors such as ego between business heads, reputational risks, and effective communication featured prominently. Dr. Prasad shared practical examples of successful dispute resolutions by proactively engaging counterpart counsel and focusing on underlying commercial realities.
The session concluded with a consensus that the evolving arbitration ecosystem in India requires increasingly sophisticated in-house legal engagement, combining legal acumen, strategic foresight, and effective collaboration with external experts, to navigate a complex, dynamic dispute resolution environment successfully.
This session provided valuable insights into client-side expectations and strategies in arbitration, reflecting the maturation of India’s arbitration user community and reinforcing the critical role of in-house counsel in shaping effective dispute management.
Session III: Dispute Resolution in the Indian Mining Sector: Balancing Environmental Concerns and Contractual Obligations
The third session of Day 3 at India ADR Week Mumbai brought together a distinguished panel representing key stakeholders from the mining industry, legal experts, and regulatory authorities- moderated by Mr. Samit Shukla (Partner, Trilegal). The panel comprised Mr. Sat Prakash (General Counsel and Head of Corporate Affairs, Lloyds Metals & Energy Ltd.); Mr. Sidharth Reddy Indukuri (Managing Director, Indukuri Group); Mr. Bhalchandra Patil (Vice President, Enviro Analyst & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.); Ms. Gayatri Singh (Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court); and Mr. Tarpit Patni (Head Legal, Mumbai Zone, Godrej Properties).
Opening the discussion, Mr. Prakash underscored the centrality of ESG issues in modern mining operations. He described sustainable development in mining as a marriage between economy and ecology, emphasizing the importance of balancing economic growth with environmental preservation for future generations. Challenges cited included limited choice over mining locations, public perception issues branding the mining sector negatively, and the under-explored vast mineral potential of India, with only about 10% being tapped to date. He highlighted complications in managing increasingly deeper and older mines, rising costs, and regulatory complexities spanning forest clearances to land acquisition and rehabilitation.
Mr. Indukuri echoed these challenges, emphasizing the imbalance in bargaining power between private miners and state/local governments who control crucial approvals. He recommended early state and community buy-in before mine auctions to alleviate future operational friction. The social aspect of ESG requires greater involvement of local communities and empowerment through structured forums like Gram Sabhas for dispute resolution.
Mr. Patil painted a detailed environmental impact picture of mining, citing issues such as soil erosion, dust and noise pollution, groundwater contamination risks, and the severe reduction of green cover. He stressed the importance of rigorous environmental management plans, including post-mining site restoration and monitoring compliance, noting that current enforcement is lax and inconsistent.
Ms. Singh took a critical legal perspective on recent amendments to mining laws (2015, 2021, and 2025), discussing their implications for lease extensions and environmental clearances. She raised concerns over regulatory imbalances favouring private leaseholders, diminishing community consultation rights, and the absence of enforceable ESG standards beyond voluntary disclosures prescribed by SEBI. Her view was that existing laws are insufficiently implemented rather than inherently defective, calling for greater regulatory oversight and genuine inclusion of social and environmental protections in mining contracts.
Mr. Patni discussed mandated restoration and rehabilitation funds, yet expressed scepticism about their practical utility without transparent utilization. He noted the regulatory authority’s conflicted role as both leasing and licensing entity, which hinders independent enforcement. He advocated for creating intermediate ADR bodies dedicated to mining disputes to alleviate overloaded courts and faster resolution of micro-level grievances, comparing with effective real estate regulatory mechanisms.
The panel addressed the challenge of balancing environmental protection, labour rights, and dispute resolution in Indian mining contracts. Ms. Singh highlighted community marginalization in contract negotiations, criticizing vague provisions like ‘industry good practices’ that lack enforceable standards. She decried the Coal Bearing Areas Act, allowing government land acquisition without compensation or consultation, leaving displaced communities without benefits. Singh also noted weak enforcement of environmental rules and growing regulatory rollbacks limiting public participation, complicating genuine ESG integration.
Mr. Prakash emphasized the centrality of land and social license, sharing experiences ensuring community rehabilitation and employment, linking mining output to social welfare and environmental responsibility. He advocated embedding clear, enforceable environmental and labour commitments in contracts, including initiatives to reduce carbon footprints.
Mr. Indukuri supported empowering local communities through prior consultations and governance involvement to reduce conflicts and recommended greater use of less disruptive underground mining techniques. Mr. Patil outlined environmental impacts like land degradation and pollution, urging stronger enforcement of environmental management plans and ongoing monitoring. The panel discussed limitations of existing mechanisms like the National Green Tribunal and proposed dedicated tribunals or ADR forums to resolve disputes efficiently and inclusively.
The session concluded with reflections on the Indian mining sector’s vital role in the economy juxtaposed with significant social and ecological responsibilities. The panel urged stronger implementation of existing laws, more agile dispute resolution mechanisms, and genuine collaboration among government, industry, communities, and civil society to achieve sustainable mining growth compatible with India’s development goals.
Session IV: Navigating Supply Chain Disputes in Post-Pandemic Markets: Causes and Best Practices
The fourth session of Day 3 at India ADR Week Mumbai was hosted by Khaitan & Co, with Mr. Raj R. Panchmatia (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) moderating a panel of leading experts: Mr. Arjun Doshi (Head Litigation, Adani Ports), Mr. Chakrapani Misra (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), Ms. Lucy Reed (President, SIAC Court), Mr. Sandeep Chowdhury (Group General Counsel, Suzlon Energy Ltd.), and Ms. Seema Manku (Division Counsel, TE & Head of Legal, Corporate Legal Services).
The session addressed the multifaceted causes and the evolving landscape of supply chain disputes emerging in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, encompassing geopolitical tensions, tariffs, sanctions, regulatory challenges, and cyber security risks affecting diverse sectors.
Ms. Manku explained disruptions impacting specialty chemical supply chains, including tariffs, regional unrest, shifting regulations, and the increasing importance of ESG compliance. She highlighted how supply chain contracts now require greater adaptability due to shorter-term agreements and frequent regulatory changes.
Mr. Chowdhury underscored the challenges of rising prices and shortages of key materials like steel and aluminium in the renewable energy sector and the impact of geopolitical factors such as trade sanctions and regional protectionism. He described how contracts are adapting with hybrid force majeure clauses covering uncontrollable risks like logistics and sanctions, coupled with negotiated risk-sharing and cost pass-through mechanisms.
Mr. Doshi shared port industry perspectives, highlighting the severe impact of sanctions on cargo handling and operational compliance, given difficulties in tracing beneficial ownership of cargo and evolving sanction lists. He described operational challenges requiring constant regulatory vigilance to avoid penalties and reputational harm.
Ms. Reed provided institutional insights, noting SIAC’s experience with an increasing number of multi-party and multi-contract supply chain disputes post-pandemic. She stressed the importance of consolidation in managing complex disputes spanning multiple related contracts, citing case examples illustrating the nuanced adjudication of supply chain disruptions affecting contractual obligations.
Mr. Misra emphasized the criticality of carefully negotiated contractual clauses including force majeure, notices, liquidated damages, and termination provisions tailored to industry-specific risks and highlighting that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. He advised parties to thoroughly assess their unique supply chain vulnerabilities and incorporate appropriate protections to mitigate disputes.
The panel highlighted significant regional legal and cultural divergences affecting dispute resolution in Asian supply chains. Ms. Manku explained that jurisdictions exhibit diverse legal traditions- India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan follow English law; whereas Philippine law reflects Latino influences. Consequently, Swiss companies prioritize English-language arbitration in Singapore for cross-border contracts to ensure procedural certainty and business comfort.
Ms. Reed noted that despite sanctions, leading institutions like SIAC maintain jurisdiction over complex disputes, including those involving sanctioned parties, underpinning the centrality of arbitration even amid geopolitical tensions. She also cited SIAC’s leadership in emergency relief mechanisms that provide rapid, effective remedies crucial for supply chain stability.
Mr. Doshi shared innovations in port industry dispute management, describing the Indian government’s conciliatory protocol allowing stakeholders to resolve issues collaboratively outside formal arbitration, significantly reducing litigation duration and fostering practical solutions aligned with long-term operational partnerships.
Panellists collectively advocated pragmatic contract drafting with bespoke clauses for force majeure, notice, termination, and dispute escalation aligned to sector-specific risks. Emphasizing robust documentation and insurance coverage emerged as essentials for risk management.
This session provided a rich, practical exploration of the causal factors driving supply chain disputes and heralded emerging best practices and dispute resolution innovations critical to navigating the uncertainties of post-pandemic global trade.
Session V: Too much, Too Little or Just Right?: Revisiting Rethinking Scrutiny of Awards Across Jurisdictions
The fifth and final session on Day 3 of India ADR Week Mumbai addressed the intricate dynamics between judicial review and the finality of arbitral awards. The discussion was moderated by Ms. Shreya Jain (Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas) and featured eminent personalities including Justice (Retd.) L. Nageswara Rao (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India), Mr. Abraham Vergis SC (Founder & Managing Director, Providence Law Asia LLC), Ms. Kanika Goenka (Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas), and Mr. Sudhanshu Swaroop KC (King’s Counsel, Twenty Essex).
Justice L. Nageswara Rao opened the discussion by outlining India’s judicial architecture and the role of courts in reviewing arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Emphasizing the principle of minimal judicial intervention, he highlighted that courts can only review awards on limited statutory grounds such as jurisdictional defects or procedural lapses. Rao discussed the evolving jurisprudence post the 2015 amendment which curtailed broad-based ‘public policy’ reviews, reinforcing the bar on merits-based interference. He also underscored challenges due to disparate judicial competence levels, stressing the necessity for enhanced judicial training to safeguard arbitration’s integrity and finality.
The panel then examined comparative approaches to appellate standards in leading jurisdictions.
Mr. Swaroop elaborated on the English Arbitration Act framework, describing the stringent thresholds for appeals based on legal errors primarily under Sections 67 and 69. He discussed the landmark Dala doctrine endorsing de novo appellate review on jurisdiction but noted its softening via recent legislative reforms in the 2025 amendment which limit re-examinations and emphasize judicial restraint. He underscored the rarity of successful appeals and the prevailing priority for arbitration finality.
Mr. Abraham Vergis shared Singapore’s approach, which blends deference with pragmatism. Singapore courts usually respect tribunal jurisdictional findings unless cogent evidence warrants reconsideration through a limited rehearing. The availability of complete arbitral records supports expeditious judicial processes. He illustrated with a case involving allegations of forgery, where expedited mini-trials were conducted, reflecting Singapore’s commitment to efficient, fair adjudication. He noted ongoing legislative consultations considering further refinements such as aligning ‘seat’ law and arbitration agreements, confirming Singapore’s adaptability to evolving commercial realities.
Ms. Goenka detailed India’s evolving stance, contrasting the pre-2015 era’s expansive ‘public policy’ scope facilitating merits review with the post-amendment narrowing focusing strictly on grounds codified in the Act. She highlighted judicial trends distinguishing standards applicable to jurisdictional challenges versus substantive objections. The emerging preference mirrors Singapore’s balanced model, though practice varies due to unfinished legislative reforms and judicial capacities. She stressed the importance of precise choice of seat, governing law, and inclusion of procedural safeguards in contracts to minimize jurisdictional ambiguities and enhance enforceability.
The session proceeded to discuss judicial powers concerning award modifications following the Supreme Court’s Gayatri Balasubramaniam ruling. Justice Rao criticized the judgment for contravening statutory intent by permitting award modifications, cautioning such judicial expansion threatens arbitration’s finality and efficiency. The panel reiterated the prudence of strictly limiting court powers over awards to annulment rather than alteration, preserving arbitration autonomy.
Mr. Swaroop noted English law permits limited award variations only within structured appellate processes, reinforcing predictable boundaries for judicial intervention. Similarly, Mr. Vergis affirmed Singapore courts lack power to modify awards but warned of potential conflicts in enforcing modified awards cross-jurisdictionally owing to competing procedural norms.
Closing recommendations emphasized robust contractual drafting with clear jurisdictional provisions, thoughtfully chosen seats, and adoption of institutional rules facilitating award corrections to pre-empt protracted disputes. The panel also advocated for ongoing judicial training and capacity building alongside enhanced institutional measures to harmonize global approaches, ensuring arbitration’s efficacy as a dispute resolution pillar amid increasing transnational trade complexities.
In sum, this session illuminated the contemporary challenges and nuanced evolution in global judicial oversight of arbitral awards, underscoring the critical balance between safeguarding party autonomy and upholding procedural fairness to foster confidence in arbitration across jurisdictions.
IPBA Introduction – IPBA Arbitration Day Mumbai
The IPBA Arbitration Day in Mumbai marked a milestone, introducing India’s legal community to the Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA), an international network of over 1,500 business and commercial lawyers spanning 65 jurisdictions. Shweta Bharti (Managing Partner, Hammurabi & Solomon Partners), Priti Suri (Founder-Partner, PSA Legal), and Michele Sonen (Head of APAC, Jus Mundi) outlined IPBA’s legacy since its foundation in 1991 and showcased its far-reaching impact on legal development, collaboration, and advocacy in the Asia-Pacific region.
Speakers emphasized IPBA’s multifaceted programs: annual meetings that rotate locations globally, regionally focused conferences, specialist practice area seminars, a quarterly journal, and influential committees addressing the broad spectrum of legal issues. Attention was drawn to the Association’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, affirmed through the scholarship program for emerging lawyers, dedicated events for women in business law, and the Arbitration Diversity Pledge.
The highlight announcement was the upcoming IPBA Annual Conference in New Delhi, scheduled for February 24-28, 2026. This conference would be the first in India in 14 years, with 56 concurrent sessions covering cutting-edge topics and ambitious engagement from younger legal professionals. The theme of the conference is the future of law, agility, creativity and change. The hosts encouraged Indian delegates to register and contribute to showcasing India’s role on the global legal stage.
The session also featured brief remarks by Lars Market and Koh Swee Yen, Co-Chairs of the Dispute Resolution Arbitration Committee.
Michele Sonen closed the session by highlighting the role of technology and describing Jus Mundi’s AI-powered tools for international arbitration research and advocacy, aimed at making law practice more efficient and strategic for Indian practitioners.
Closing Keynote Address – Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Bombay High Court
For the closing ceremony of Day 3 of the India Arbitration Week, Mr. Milind Sathe, MCIA Council Member, introduced the keynote speaker, Justice Revati Mohite Dere’s
Justice Dere’s address reflected on India’s journey towards becoming a global hub for arbitration. She invoked Late Shri Fali Nariman’s insight: “The question is not whether arbitration works but whether it works well enough to inspire confidence,” underscoring trust, efficiency, and credibility as the cornerstones of arbitral success.
Justice Dere traced the growth of arbitral institutions like MCIA, now recognized globally, citing impressive statistics: a leap from 7 filed cases in 2018-19 to 34 in 2024, with 91% of awards rendered within 18 months and none set aside. She remarked that international validation, such as the Dubai International Financial Centre’s (DIFC) enforcement of an MCIA award, marks India’s credibility and growing stature.
She celebrated judicial reforms, referencing landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Avitel Post Studioz, Global Mercantile, and Cox and Kings, which align India’s arbitration regime with global best practices. Yet, she warned that persistent delays and cost risks could undermine these gains, urging for capped arbitration fees, expedited rules for small value claims, arbitrator diversity, and a national database of arbitrators.
Justice Dere concluded with optimism but acknowledged ongoing challenges: “Numbers may impress, credibility sustains. And credibility, once earned, has the power to transform India’s arbitral landscape.” She called for further innovation and collective effort to make India not just a “factory to the world” but the “forum of choice” for dispute resolution.