Should Indian parties still choose London? 

For decades, Indian corporates have turned to London. The city’s reputation as a stable, efficient, and neutral seat of arbitration remains unparalleled. Yet as India steadily reforms its arbitration framework, the question naturally arises: should London still be the preferred choice for Indian businesses?  

Historical continuity and comfort with common law continue to anchor London’s enduring leadership. English law is familiar to Indian businesses, and the continuity of legal reasoning across both jurisdictions offers predictability. London’s arbitration culture, supported by globally respected institutions such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and a judiciary renowned for minimal interference, provides the procedural certainty that commercial parties value most. For Indian corporates operating across multiple jurisdictions or managing high value disputes, this neutrality and reliability remain decisive advantages.   

Enforceability further consolidates London’s appeal. Arbitral awards issued in the UK are routinely recognised and enforced in India under the New York Convention, with relatively limited judicial resistance. This dependable enforceability, coupled with London’s reputation for impartiality, continues to make it a preferred seat for cross-border disputes.   

India’s arbitration landscape has undoubtedly evolved. Amendments between 2015 and 2021, the establishment of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), and landmark pro-arbitration decisions, from BALCO to Amazon v. Future Retail. More recently, in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd v HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) (2024), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that foreign-seated arbitral awards are to be enforced in India with minimal judicial intervention. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 further modernises India’s framework by streamlining timelines, embracing digital processes, and clarifying the law on arbitral seats to solidify India’s global competitiveness as an arbitration hub.   

However, persistent practical challenges remain. Judicial delays, inconsistent application of Sections 9 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (1996), and occasional judicial overreach continue to undermine confidence. Many practitioners also cite concerns about potential bias, lack of institutional independence, and unpredictable costs when proceedings are seated in India. These issues, both perceptive and substantive, lead many parties to continue to favour the predictability of the London seat.   

While London continues to modernise its procedures (most recently in the form of the new Arbitration Act 2025), embrace digital hearings, and fortify its global arbitration infrastructure, India is still in the process of building a cohesive national arbitration identity. For Indian corporates navigating complex cross-border disputes, the question, therefore, is not which seat is “better,” but which best serves the commercial interests of Indian parties today.  

While India’s arbitration ecosystem develops, London continues to offer familiarity, stability, and confidence.  

Need expert legal advice for arbitration? Contact Andre here.