During the India ADR Week 2026 in Mumbai, a panel of in-house legal experts emphasized the importance of selecting arbitrators with both procedural and industry-specific expertise for domestic disputes in India. The panel, comprising distinguished legal professionals, noted the traditional reliance on retired judges for arbitral tribunals. However, they argued that complex commercial cases increasingly benefit from the inclusion of domain specialists, practitioners, and general counsel.
Advocating for Domain Expertise
Moderated by Sharmistha Chakrabarti of Skadden, the session titled “In-house Counsel’s Roles and Expectations during the Arbitral Process” included insights from Mahindra & Mahindra General Counsel Naveen Raju, Hindustan Unilever Executive Director of Legal & Corporate Affairs Vivek Mittal, Global General Counsel Shalini Saxena, and Asia Head of International Arbitration at Skadden Friven Yeoh. Mittal pointed out the challenges arising from arbitrators who lack subject-matter expertise, particularly in technical arbitrations that are often stalled by ex-judges viewing cases purely from a judicial perspective.
“Arbitration in India has become very complex because most of the arbitrators are either ex-judges or senior counsel who don’t understand the subject matter expertise,” Mittal remarked. He advocated for general counsels to step into arbitrator roles, suggesting that their industry knowledge could enhance arbitration outcomes.
Subject-Matter Familiarity and Contract Negotiations
Shalini Saxena echoed the need for tribunals to possess subject-matter knowledge, irrespective of their backgrounds. She urged arbitration institutions to ensure their arbitrators are well-versed in relevant expertise areas before proceeding with cases. Saxena also highlighted the limitations faced when contracting with government bodies, where regulatory requirements often dictate the dispute resolution forum.
Naveen Raju discussed the complexities of handling disputes involving public sector entities, referencing the June 2024 Office Memorandum by the Finance Ministry. This memorandum favors court litigation over arbitration in high-value disputes to prevent prolonged legal battles.
More Read
Strategizing Arbitration Proceedings
On another panel moderated by Shalaka Patil from Trilegal, experts shared strategies for managing arbitration from the perspectives of both claimants and respondents. BNY Mellon Senior Director Abhishek Thanvi emphasized the importance of maintaining commercial continuity over engaging in legal confrontations, while Vischer Managing Associate Janine Haesler cautioned against delaying asset tracing.
Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina from Bombay High Court expressed a preference for seeking urgent interim reliefs from the court under section 9, rather than relying solely on arbitral tribunals. Richard Healey, Partner and Head of Disputes at Gateley Legal UK, advised prudence in responding to dispute notices.
India’s Role in International Arbitration
Another discussion focused on India’s potential as a neutral venue for international arbitration amidst geopolitical shifts and sanctions against traditional arbitration hubs. Eraldo d’Atri from Humphries Kerstetter moderated the session, with panelists including Baiju Vasani of Twenty Essex, Rahul Donde, Shaneen Parikh of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, and Srishti Jain of Humphries Kerstetter.
More Read
The experts discussed how India’s non-aligned stance in global politics positions its legal professionals as neutral players in international disputes. Rahul Donde noted the increasing demand for alternatives to arbitration centers like London and Singapore, while Shaneen Parikh identified domestic restrictions on foreign lawyers as a challenge. Srishti Jain encouraged Indian practitioners to pursue arbitration opportunities beyond domestic boundaries.
