Arbitration has become the preferred route for resolving high-value commercial disputes in India – and for good reason. It offers confidentiality, flexibility in procedure, the ability to choose decision-makers with relevant expertise, and in most cases, a faster resolution than litigation through the civil courts.
But arbitration is only effective when it’s handled by counsel who understands both the legal framework and the commercial substance of the dispute. A poorly argued arbitration – one where the submissions lack precision, the evidence isn’t properly marshalled, or the procedural rules aren’t followed correctly – leads to outcomes that are difficult to challenge even if they’re wrong.
Adv. Shailendra Singh has appeared as counsel in arbitral proceedings across a range of commercial sectors. As an Accredited Mediator of the Supreme Court of India, he brings an additional perspective: he understands dispute resolution holistically, which allows him to assess at any stage whether negotiation or mediation offers a better outcome than continuing to arbitrate
The 1996 Act has undergone significant amendments — in 2015, 2019, and through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021. Each round of changes has shifted the balance between court intervention and tribunal autonomy. The 2015 amendment, in particular, fundamentally changed the stay of arbitral awards under Section 36, making enforcement more streamlined.
Keeping current with these legislative changes — and the judicial interpretation that follows — is non-negotiable for effective arbitration counsel. Adv. Shailendra Singh stays closely engaged with developments in arbitration law, including Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments that regularly clarify and sometimes redefine the legal landscape.
Sometimes clients come to us mid-proceeding — dissatisfied with how things are going, or because their previous counsel has withdrawn. We’ve stepped into ongoing arbitrations, assessed the position, and taken matters forward without losing significant ground.
If an award has already been passed and you believe it’s legally flawed, we can advise on whether grounds exist under Section 34 for a challenge and what realistic prospects there are of success.
Not every dispute that has an arbitration clause actually needs to go through a full arbitral proceeding. Where both parties are commercially motivated to resolve the matter, mediation can deliver a faster, cheaper, and often more commercially sensible outcome.
Adv. Shailendra Singh serves both as counsel in arbitration and as an accredited mediator — a dual role that gives clients access to genuinely expert advice on which route makes sense for their specific situation.
Yes, with limited exceptions. A party can challenge an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on specific grounds — such as patent illegality, conflict with public policy, or procedural irregularity — but these grounds are narrowly interpreted by Indian courts.
Courts have limited supervisory jurisdiction. Interim relief under Section 9 is available, and courts can assist with evidence gathering. Beyond that, the policy under the amended Act is minimal court interference.
The seat determines which country's legal system governs the arbitration. The venue is simply where hearings physically take place. The distinction has significant implications for challenges to awards and choice of curial law.
Under the 2015 amendments, the Arbitration Act now mandates that proceedings be completed within 12 months of the tribunal's constitution, extendable by 6 months by party consent. In practice, timelines vary, but arbitration is generally faster than civil litigation for commercial disputes.
