India Supreme Court Flags Rising Litigation at Every Stage of Arbitration

Arbitration is increasingly generating litigation at every stage, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while hearing a dispute arising from an arbitral tribunal’s order directing a change of venue from Delhi to London.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh made the remark during objections to an International Court of Arbitration tribunal’s decision to move the hearing from India to London.

 

“The problem in arbitration is now that at every stage it generates litigation,” CJI Kant commented.

 

The Court was examining how an arbitration agreement that expressly fixed Hyderabad as the venue had resulted in hearings taking place in Delhi, with a final sitting scheduled at the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) in London. The arbitration clause, the ICC terms of reference and Article 18 of the ICC Rules all confirmed Hyderabad as the venue. The judges questioned how the process had shifted across jurisdictions without a single hearing being held at the agreed location.

 

NMDC Steel Limited had approached the Telangana High Court in October 2025, challenging a tribunal order in an ICC arbitration. On September 15, 2025, the tribunal decided to shift the closing hearing from New Delhi to the IDRC in London.

 

On October 7, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar granted limited interim protection to NMDC, noting prima facie concerns about the tribunal’s reasoning. The High Court highlighted that:

• The arbitration agreement designated Hyderabad as the venue;
• The tribunal’s order did not consider NMDC’s proposal of Hyderabad as an alternative;
• Under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Article 18 of the ICC Rules, party convenience prevails over tribunal convenience; and
• Most parties were India-based, making it “inconceivable” that no venue in New Delhi or Hyderabad could host the hearing.
  
  

The High Court found the shift to London potentially perverse and prima facie beyond the tribunal’s authority but refused to stay the arbitration. It only restrained the tribunal from finalising London bookings pursuant to an email asking parties to confirm reservations by 6 PM on October 5, 2025. The issue of maintainability was left open.

When the respondents later produced additional correspondence -- including NMDC’s participation in an earlier evidentiary hearing in London and messages suggesting openness to Singapore or London -- the context changed. On November 20, 2025, the same Bench dismissed the writ petition on maintainability grounds.

The Supreme Court questioned why domestic venues were not explored after the tribunal found hotels in Delhi expensive. “What is the problem that you first enter into an agreement for India then try to wriggle out only because of the luxury of certain members,” the Bench asked, noting that India has multiple cities capable of hosting large arbitral hearings.

The judges also stressed that they did not wish to pass any order that could unsettle India’s arbitration ecosystem, emphasising the importance of confidence in domestic venues. CJI Kant remarked, “The international arbitration community may think that Indian courts are very conservative. We don’t want that kind of message to be given.”

The Court asked parties to return with proposals for an Indian venue that would allow the scheduled December sittings to proceed.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.