International parties with disputes connected to India routinely default to arbitration, typically Singapore, London or, where the contract permits, an Indian-seated tribunal. The default is reasonable. It is also, increasingly often, the wrong answer. The Indian High Courts, particularly the Commercial Divisions established under the Commercial Courts Act, have evolved into a venue that, in the right case, delivers speed, finality and enforceability that arbitration does not.
Three procedural patterns are driving this evolution. The first is the consolidation of commercial matters into dedicated benches. Commercial Division judges hear commercial matters and only commercial matters. The benefit of this is not glamorous but it is significant: pleadings are read by judges who read the same kind of pleadings every day, who have a working familiarity with industry practice, and who can dispense with the procedural ceremony that a generalist bench is sometimes obliged to observe. Hearings are tighter. Orders are more substantive. The pace of disposition has, in the major Commercial Divisions, materially improved.
The second pattern is the more disciplined application of the Commercial Courts Act amendments, particularly the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement for non-urgent matters, the case management timelines, and the costs regime. None of these is novel in any jurisdiction with a developed commercial bar. All of them, applied with discipline, change the economics of a dispute. A defendant who would otherwise have an incentive to spin out a matter for years has a meaningfully reduced incentive when costs follow the event and case management is taken seriously.
The third pattern is the use of interim relief. The Indian High Courts retain a robust and well-developed jurisdiction to grant injunctive and protective relief, including in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. International parties whose contracts provide for offshore arbitration sometimes forget that the Indian courts remain available, and useful, for the protective work that an arbitral tribunal cannot easily deliver in the early days of a dispute. The combination of an offshore-seated arbitration on the merits and an Indian Section 9 application for interim relief is, in many cases, the strongest available posture.
When is the High Court the right answer for a cross-border dispute? The answer is fact-specific, but the patterns are recognisable. Disputes where enforcement will, in any event, occur against Indian assets. Disputes where the relief sought is injunctive rather than monetary. Disputes where the commercial pressure of public proceedings is itself a tactical asset. Disputes where the speed of a Commercial Division bench exceeds the speed of the relevant arbitral seat. And, increasingly, disputes where the parties have come to view arbitration's confidentiality as a cost rather than a benefit.
The point is not that arbitration is obsolete. It is not. The point is that the default, arbitration for every cross-border matter, has outlived the analysis that produced it. The disciplined approach is to choose the venue on the facts, with the High Court as a genuine option, not a fallback.
Privileged commentary · Not legal advice · © Zuber & Partners