Statutory recognition of emergency arbitration and the establishment of a dedicated Gujarat High Court bench at GIFT City could significantly streamline India’s dispute resolution framework, Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia said on Friday.
Justice Karia was speaking at a panel discussion organised by the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre (GHAC) as part of Arbitration Week 2026 at GIFT City in Gandhinagar.
The discussion focused on two themes, the progress of arbitration in the post-2015 amendment era and the new International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines 2024 on conflicts, disclosure and arbitral independence.
The panel included former Supreme Court Justice MR Shah, Gujarat Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, and Senior Advocates Mihir Thakore and Janak Dwarkadas. Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta moderated the discussion.
Justice Karia observed that while India had made significant progress in arbitration following the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, procedural bottlenecks under Sections 9, 11, 34 and 37 continued to burden courts.
Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia advocated for statutory recognition of emergency arbitration under a proposed Section 9A, emphasizing that its effective implementation requires an institutional arbitration framework.
According to him, a statutory framework for emergency arbitration could enable parties to obtain urgent interim relief within 14 days, while reducing the burden on courts.
Turning to GIFT City’s potential as an international arbitration hub, Justice Karia suggested setting up a dedicated bench of the Gujarat High Court there.
He noted that the default jurisdiction otherwise falls upon the Gandhinagar district court. In the long term, he suggested the establishment of a full-fledged international commercial court on the lines of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts or the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).
The panel also discussed the scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, with participants debating whether courts should maintain a light-touch approach or have greater powers to address flawed arbitral awards.
Calling for specialized judicial benches and enhanced training programs. Justice Karia stressed the need for arbitrators to undergo continuous professional development to refine their skill sets for modern dispute resolution.
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas highlighted the systemic delays caused by an inadequate judge-to-population ratio. He suggested amending the definition of “court” under the Arbitration Act to limit arbitral matters to specialised judicial divisions.
Advocating for a transition away from ad-hoc arbitration, Gujarat Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, argued that such proceedings frequently result in flawed awards. Highlighting the problem, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas noted that Delhi High Court data reveals nearly half of all ad-hoc awards fail judicial scrutiny, drawing a parallel to a commercial product that fails 50% of the time.
Justice Shah also flagged the increasing number of applications seeking extension of the arbitral timeline under Section 29A. He noted that following Supreme Court rulings, such applications now lie before trial and district courts and stressed the need for specialised arbitration training for judges through judicial academies.
He further observed that monetary security deposits often fail to adequately protect claimants whose businesses may collapse during prolonged litigation.
Trivedi proposed strict statutory timelines, including a six-month cap for deciding Section 34 petitions and a three-month cap for Section 37 appeals. He also pointed out that broad terms such as “public policy” continue to require extensive judicial interpretation.
Thakore highlighted delays in the execution of arbitral awards under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. He suggested that execution powers could be transferred directly to courts hearing Section 34 petitions or that mechanisms similar to Schedule Two of the Income Tax Act could be adopted for faster recovery.
Former Supreme Court Justice M R Shah, called for strict restraint in court intervention, arguing that judges should not expand the Arbitration Act by reading in unwritten rules. Discussing arbitrator impartiality under the updated IBA Guidelines 2024, Justice Shah criticized Section 12 conflict declarations for becoming overly mechanical, while Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore advised arbitrators to always err on the side of full disclosure to protect award enforceability
Dwarkadas concluded by citing data suggesting that the composition of arbitral tribunals accounted for 74.28 per cent of awards set aside by courts, underlining the need for greater attention to the selection and independence of arbitrators.
The post Emergency arbitration needs statutory backing; Justice Tejas Karia calls for dedicated Gujarat High Court Bench at GIFT city appeared first on India Legal.