Live from LIDW 2025: 7th ed. of SIAC Rules

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) continues to cement its position as a forum of choice for India-related international arbitrations, thanks to its reputation for neutrality, efficiency, and innovation. Today’s session focuses on the impact of the recently released 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules, which introduces several key developments aimed at enhancing procedural flexibility and institutional robustness.

Panelists explore new tools such as the Streamlined Procedure, Preliminary Determination, and Coordinated Proceedings, as well as the significant addition of ex parte protective preliminary orders available through Emergency Arbitrators. The revised Rules also feature updated arbitrator appointment provisions, and a broader framework designed to promote integrity and efficiency throughout the arbitral process.

This high-level discussion brings together an impressive panel of leading arbitration practitioners, senior general counsel, and institutional figures. Together, they examine whether these changes reinforce SIAC’s appeal for India-focused disputes and assess their potential influence on best practices in regional dispute resolution.

The session offers participants timely insights and practical guidance on navigating the evolving arbitration landscape and adapting to the strategic opportunities and challenges posed by SIAC’s latest rule changes.

This distinguished session brings together some of the most influential voices in the international arbitration and legal community:

Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India
The Rt. Hon. Lord David Neuberger of Abbotsbury, former President of the UK Supreme Court
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India
Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate; Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration
Shwetha Bidhuri, Director & Head (South Asia), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
Sapan Gupta, Vice President — Group General Counsel, ArcelorMittal
Sidharth Sharma, Group General Counsel, Tata Sons

Moderated by:

Nitesh Jain, Partner, Trilegal

Session Hosts:

Trilegal
Singapore International Arbitration Centre

Justice Gavai addresses the distinguished audience, remarking, “It is a privilege to address such a distinguished gathering at London International Disputes Week, a platform where some of the world’s foremost legal minds converge to shape the future of arbitration.”

He extends “heartfelt appreciation to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and Trilegal” for hosting an insightful session focused on the evolving dynamics of arbitration.

Turning attention to the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules, Justice Gavai underscores its significant impact on India-related arbitrations, noting that the contemporary global order is undergoing rapid transformation across economic, political, and social domains. These shifts, he observes,

“call for a corresponding evolution in the mechanisms for the administration of justice, making platforms like this more relevant than ever.”

He reflects on the shift in dispute resolution, stating that what was once confined to traditional courtroom boundaries has now undergone a profound transformation, with arbitration emerging as a central instrument in this evolution.

“Arbitration today represents a substantive recalibration of how justice is understood and delivered,” Justice Gavai explains.

He refers to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as “the backbone of India’s arbitration framework, which encompasses domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.”

He furthers by spotlighting the strong judicial and commercial cooperation between India and Singapore, particularly referencing the 2023 Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Singapore, on behalf of the two Chief Justices.

He remarks, “Singapore’s bigger infrastructure, institutional support, utility and efficiency have made it a preferred fit for arbitration globally and more particularly for the Indian parties.”

He reflects that the release of the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules, effective from 04-01-2025, marks a significant milestone in the evolution of institutional arbitration.

“The new rules introduce a range of innovative mechanisms, specifically designed to enhance procedural efficiency, reduce costs, and uphold the core principles of fairness and party autonomy”, he notes.

Justice Gavai notes that another notable feature of the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules is the introduction of provisions for coordinated proceedings. He explains, “This facility proves particularly useful in cases involving multiple arbitrations arising out of related transactions, where similar questions of fact or law are at stake.” Under this mechanism, he adds, “parties may apply to consolidate or coordinate such proceedings before the same arbitral tribunal, thereby promoting consistency, efficiency, and judicial economy.”

Focusing on the SIAC Rules, Justice Gavai remarks that this update “demonstrates the progressive development and codification of arbitration practice by providing clear and explicit guidance to tribunals.” He adds, “The 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules represents a significant milestone in enhancing the efficiency of arbitrations globally, especially for India-related disputes.”

While concluding his address, he emphasises that, “combined with the strong and supportive legal systems of both Singapore and India, these rules can play a vital role in promoting business activities.” By “strengthening dispute resolution mechanisms,” he notes, “they will build greater confidence among international investors, encouraging cross-border business engagements through a reliable forum for resolving disputes.”

“The 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules can significantly reduce the uncertainties often associated with cross-border transactions, thereby making India and Singapore even more attractive destinations for investment and trade,” he remarks.

Concluding, he notes,

“I’m happy to acknowledge that the 7th edition of the SIAC Rules is a forward-looking endeavor aimed at enhancing efficiency while balancing fairness, especially for India, whose commercial players are increasingly global in outlook and operations.”

The panel takes it forward, delving deeper into the practical implications of the SIAC Rules and the future of India-Singapore arbitration dynamics.

Shwetha Bidhuri, remarks, “The new rules reflect SIAC’s experience managing over 3,000 cases under the 2016 rules and were developed with careful consideration of evolving practices.”

She explains that SIAC’s practical experience led to targeted reforms in the rules to enhance procedural efficiency.

“Our experience handling numerous cases highlighted the need to introduce measures that make the arbitration process more efficient for all parties involved. The draft rules were introduced in 2023 and developed following an extensive consultation process, primarily with the SIAC Users Council.”

Bidhuri further adds, “We engaged multiple stakeholders—including in-house counsel, the arbitration community, government representatives, academics, and students—through several sessions, some of which were closed-door, to gather comprehensive feedback on the draft and its provisions.”

Addressing a key question on what was modified in the final version of the rules, she cites the example of publication of awards. “The draft proposed deemed consent for publication unless a party objected within six months. However, stakeholders emphasised the importance of confidentiality. As a result, the final rules require explicit agreement from the parties before an award can be published, and any publication must be in redacted form.”

Bidhuri goes on to highlight another significant update in the rules concerning emergency arbitration. She explains that the draft had proposed shortening the existing 14-day timeline for emergency arbitrators to issue orders.

She notes, “The draft suggested shortening the 14-day timeline for emergency arbitrators to issue orders, based on observed practice where decisions often came in about 10 days.” However, she shares that feedback from stakeholders played a critical role in shaping the final outcome. “Feedback indicated that shortening the timeline further would be too restrictive, so the 14-day period was retained, though in practice many decisions still come faster,” she states.

Joining the discussion, Lord David Neuberger underscores the significance of ex parte provisional measures under the new SIAC Rules. He remarks that the power to grant ex parte orders—such as preserving assets or documents—is a significant and weighty responsibility. “It is a marked shift because it allows an arbitrator to impose orders on a party who hasn’t had the opportunity to be heard or even notified,” he states.

Lord Neuberger acknowledges that such a provision may appear to conflict with the fundamental legal principle that “no one should be subject to an order without a chance to present their case.” However, he clarifies that common law systems—including those in the UK, Singapore, and India—have long valued pragmatism and flexibility.

He notes that “courts in these jurisdictions recognize that, in certain urgent and exceptional circumstances, such orders are necessary.”

He further emphasises that “lawyers seeking such ex parte orders bear a heavy responsibility to ensure the order is truly necessary and justified.” Equally, he cautions that “arbitrators must carefully assess whether issuing the order without prior notice is appropriate, while doing their best to safeguard the rights of the party who has not yet been heard.”

Lord David says that time limits for awards have become essential because arbitration, in many cases, is now as expensive and slow as court proceedings—both in this country and likely in others, including Singapore and India. Therefore, the introduction of new procedures and strict time limits is, in his view, strongly to be welcomed.

Darius Khambata brings an Indian legal perspective to the evolving framework around ex parte orders. He notes that “ex parte orders are not uncommon in Indian courts.” He explains that “such orders have been passed regularly, which is why the Supreme Court and other courts have established very specific guidelines. As long as these guidelines are followed, enforcement should not pose any issues.”

Turning to the enforceability of interim orders from foreign tribunals, Khambata points out a key procedural nuance.

“There is generally a challenge in enforcing interlocutory orders of foreign tribunals directly under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, one must file a Section 9 application to seek interim relief from an Indian court.”

However, drawing from his own practice, he shares that Indian courts have shown a pragmatic approach. “Indian courts have consistently granted interim orders passed by foreign tribunals—either fully or with minor modifications. Thus, in practice, enforcement does not appear to be a significant hurdle,” he affirms.

“The only issue about the streamline procedure and whether it will be acceptable in India or to Indian litigants, I have to tell you that the Indian litigant likes two things in an arbitration. First, for whatever reason, it is usually not comfortable with the sole arbitrator.”, Darius remarks

Sapan Gupta offers a pragmatic corporate lens on the evolving framework. He says, “SIAC will need to watch how this develops, but overall, I see it as a bold and positive step. Let’s see where it goes.”

Building on Darius Khambata’s point regarding enforcement, Gupta flags a practical concern:

“When rules mention a 24-hour deadline, it often actually means 8 working hours, which is very short—especially considering different time zones and that courts operate around the clock.”

He also highlights a real challenge in enforceability—particularly when ex parte orders target banks. “When an ex parte order asks a bank to stop payment on a guarantee, banks tend to require a stamped order before acting, which sets a high standard for voluntary compliance.” He cautions that “enforceability can vary greatly depending on which party is involved.”

On court cooperation, Gupta expresses confidence, stating, “Courts can usually meet the timelines specified in such orders.”

Sidharth Sharma reflects on recent procedural innovations, particularly the seven-day window for invoking emergency arbitration. He notes that it allows parties “valuable time to carefully consider the final relief needed and select the appropriate arbitrator.” He describes this change as “a related reform offering flexibility, akin to provisions for provisional measures or PPOs.”

He adds that “truly urgent cases requiring extremely fast action are rare,” and sees emergency arbitration as a “useful option rather than a frequent necessity.” Sharma observes that choosing between emergency arbitration and court intervention under Section 9 will “depend on the circumstances.”

Tushar Mehta, offers a nuanced view on jurisdictional interplay. He states, “Interim arbitration orders are not a substitute for Section 9 of the A & C Act.” For instance, “in a foreign-seated arbitration governed by Indian law, even if an interim order is obtained from an emergency arbitrator, enforcement would still require approaching the competent Indian court under Section 9.”

He highlights a practical conundrum in dual proceedings, where “in cases with claims and counterclaims, both parties might seek urgent interim ex parte orders—one via the emergency arbitrator, the other via the court under Section 9.” Mehta points out that “the rules do not clarify how to resolve conflicts between such competing orders or whether they can coexist.”

He remarks,

“As my Lord, the Chief Justice said, it’s a very forward-looking step. It was needed. It is timely. How would it play out would depend upon several circumstances and the Parliament will have to take a call whether there is any amendment necessary, if at all, there is any amendment necessary and if yes, what should be the amendment can be decided only after it plays out.”

He further refers to the provision allowing a party to “approach the emergency arbitrator for modifying or varying an order.” However, he notes legal uncertainty in India about how such orders will be classified: “Questions remain about whether emergency arbitrator orders will be treated under Indian law as partial awards subject to challenge under Section 34 or as interlocutory orders appealable under Section 37.” He concludes that “these remain deliberately ambiguous, leaving room for future jurisprudence.”

The panel collectively recognises the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules as a progressive and timely step in enhancing arbitration’s efficiency and relevance, particularly for India-related disputes. While celebrating increased flexibility and stronger dispute resolution frameworks, speakers underscore ongoing practical challenges in enforcement and legal clarity.

SCC Times

Live from LIDW 2025 | ‘7th ed. of SIAC Rules is forward-looking endeavour enhancing efficiency while balancing fairness, especially for India’s increasingly global commercial players’: CJI Gavai

Moderated by:

Session Hosts:

Most Read

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Moderated by:

Session Hosts:

Most Read

Must Watch

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply