In this SCC Spotlight Talk, Inbavijayan Veeraraghavan, international arbitrator and Managing Partner of KoVe Global LLP, discusses the evolving dispute resolution landscape between India and Europe. He examines the challenges parties face in cross-border commercial disputes, the growing role of European arbitral institutions, and the reforms shaping the future of India–Europe arbitration.

Trade and investment between India and Europe have grown considerably in recent years. How would you characterise the current dispute resolution landscape for cross-border commercial disputes involving Indian and European parties?

The India–Europe dispute resolution landscape is sharply divided between foreign- and domestic-seated arbitrations. In my experience, European parties tend to have stronger bargaining power to select seats like London, Paris, Stockholm, or Geneva under ICC, LCIA, or SCC rules. These foreign awards are enforced under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 2015 amendments were a significant step forward – they streamlined enforcement by limiting the public policy defence, imposing timelines, and, following the BALCO and NTT Docomo decisions, excluding merits review and patent illegality challenges. Domestic proceedings, however, still suffer from judicialisation, extensive discovery, court-like procedures, and multiple appeals. The result is that foreign-seated awards today enjoy relatively predictable enforcement in India.

In your experience, what are the most common types of disputes that arise between Indian and European companies, and what particular challenges do parties face when trying to resolve them, whether in terms of legal culture, enforcement, or procedural expectations?

In my experience, the most common India–Europe disputes arise from failed joint ventures, strategic disagreements, technology transfer arrangements, energy and infrastructure projects, supply contracts, and defence procurement. These disputes are complicated by procedural differences – European counsel generally favour limited document production, while Indian practice relies on broader discovery and extensive oral testimony, which increases costs and complexity. Another challenge is the evolving judicial approach of Indian courts, with decisions like Vidya Drolia and Amazon v. Future Retail creating uncertainties for contracting parties. These issues reflect a broader clash between the European preference for finality in arbitration and India’s more litigation-oriented culture, which accommodates multiple layers of challenge.

When it comes to choosing the seat of arbitration and ad hoc or an arbitral institution, what factors do Indian parties typically weigh? Do you see a growing openness among Indian companies to neutral third-country seats or European institutions such as the SCC?

In my experience, Indian parties select arbitral seats based on four key factors: enforceability, legal familiarity, cost, and neutrality. London and Singapore have traditionally been preferred because of their common-law systems, established precedents, and close links to Indian commercial practice. SIAC has become particularly popular due to its proximity, lower costs compared to the LCIA, and efficient interim relief mechanisms. I also see that sophisticated parties increasingly favour institutional arbitration over ad hoc UNCITRAL proceedings because of the stronger administrative support it provides. Interest is growing in Stockholm under the SCC, which is valued for its efficiency, experience with Asian parties, and geopolitical neutrality. That said, wider adoption is still limited by higher costs, logistical difficulties for SMEs, lower familiarity, and legacy contracts that continue to favour London and Singapore. What I find encouraging is that the inclusion of SCC and VIAC clauses in India–EU trade discussions indicates European arbitral institutions may gain greater prominence as bilateral investment treaty negotiations progress.

India has seen significant legislative and judicial developments in arbitration in recent years, including amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and a series of Supreme Court judgments shaping the field. What further reforms or trends do you believe will most influence the future of India-Europe dispute resolution, and where do you see the greatest opportunities?

I see the future of India–Europe dispute resolution being driven by three key developments.

• First, the proposed 2024 Arbitration Act amendments seek to strengthen institutional arbitration, recognise emergency arbitrator measures, reduce judicial intervention, and align Indian law with the UNCITRAL Model Law.
• Second, the Mediation Act 2023 grants mediated settlements decree-like enforceability and encourages pre-arbitration mediation in commercial disputes.
• Third, Indian courts are increasingly adopting a pro-enforcement approach by narrowing public policy and fraud-based challenges to arbitral awards.

Together, these reforms support India’s goal of becoming a major international arbitration hub while providing Europe with a more stable and institutionalised dispute resolution framework. Their effectiveness will ultimately depend on stronger mutual trust and treaty-level commitments – ideally through a future India–EU Bilateral Investment Treaty. The long-term objective is a neutral, standardised dispute resolution system that balances finality with procedural fairness.