Authors: Samir Malik, Mahip Singh and Ayushi Pandey
As global commerce evolves, the relationship between India and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has emerged as a strategic axis of economic and legal collaboration. With bilateral trade touching USD 84 billion in the last financial year, both nations have not only demonstrated deep economic interdependence but have also undertaken significant convergence of their legal frameworks to enable effective cross-border dispute resolution.
Rise of a Modern Legal Framework: Treaties and Bilateral Cooperation
In response to the intensifying trade relationship, India and the UAE signed a new Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) in 2024, replacing the 2014 version. The updated BIT introduces progressive investor protection mechanisms such as the National Treatment clause and provisions allowing the repatriation of funds arising from investments. More significantly, it aligns with India’s 2016 Model BIT by introducing a narrower definition of “investment” and a qualified right to arbitration—requiring investors to exhaust local remedies for a minimum of three years before initiating arbitration.
The 2024 BIT also addresses a long-standing technical gap in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Although both nations are signatories to the New York Convention, 1958, India is yet to notify the UAE as a reciprocating territory under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This has raised legal uncertainty around the enforceability of UAE-seated awards in India. The 2024 BIT resolves this ambiguity by expressly permitting enforcement of such awards as long as the seat is in a Convention state, even without a formal notification. This provision is a crucial step towards legal clarity and confidence for cross-border investors.
In parallel, the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (“CEPA”) signed in 2022 between the two nations seeks to liberalise trade and investment flows. Notably, CEPA deliberately excludes binding investor-state dispute resolution provisions, signalling a policy approach that separates commercial facilitation from legal recourse mechanisms—delegating the latter to treaty-based instruments like the BIT.
Arbitration Commitment and Institutional Advancements
Both India and the UAE have shown firm commitment to arbitration. They are signatories to the New York Convention and have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, reinforcing the enforceability of arbitral awards across their jurisdictions.
In the UAE, world-class arbitral institutions such as the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”), Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (“ADCCAC”), and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) have been developed to handle complex, high-value disputes. These institutions offer procedural flexibility and adhere to global standards.
India has likewise undertaken substantial reforms to elevate its arbitration regime. The 2021 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act clarified enforcement procedures and improved interim relief mechanisms. The proposed Draft Arbitration Bill, 2024 marks a significant reform effort, including the renaming of the Act to simply “Arbitration Act,” aligning the terminology from “place” to “seat,” and limiting court intervention under Section 9. It also formally recognises emergency arbitration—a development influenced by cases like Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., where the Indian judiciary endorsed emergency arbitral relief.
Judicial trends also indicate a maturing arbitration ecosystem. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., where a ₹3,000 crore award was set aside for patent illegality, has led to broader policy shifts including a directive from the Finance Ministry discouraging arbitrations in smaller public contracts and encouraging mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023.
Judicial Approaches to Cross-Border Enforcement
The enforceability of UAE-seated awards in India remains an unresolved issue in practice, given the absence of a formal reciprocity notification under Section 44. In Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises v. M.V. African Trader, the Indian courts refused to enforce an award from South Africa for this very reason. This precedent could apply to UAE-seated awards, barring legislative or judicial intervention.
However, Indian courts have generally adopted a pro-enforcement stance, interpreting Section 48 of the Arbitration Act narrowly. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld foreign awards unless they evidently violate public policy and has set a high threshold for grounds like arbitrator bias.
In the absence of a notified status under Section 44, parties may resort to enforcing UAE awards by first converting them into civil judgments in the UAE and then enforcing those judgments in India under Order 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, which recognises UAE civil judgments since 2020. While viable, this method underscores the urgent need for formal legislative clarity.
On the UAE side, courts—particularly in the DIFC and Dubai—have shown robust support for enforcing foreign awards. In Neal v. Nadir, a UAE court enforced an interim award issued by a foreign-seated tribunal, holding that the binding nature of the award, not its finality or place of arbitration, determines enforceability. These jurisdictions function effectively as conduit forums, enforcing awards even where the dispute has no local nexus. Indian awards are also enforceable in the UAE without procedural hurdles.
This mutual inclination towards pro-enforcement jurisprudence indicates a growing legal compatibility between the two systems, notwithstanding formal technical gaps in India.
Institutional and Capacity-Building Collaborations
A notable recent development is the increasing institutional collaboration between India and the UAE. In May 2024, DIAC and the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad, (“IAMC”) entered into a memorandum of understanding to promote knowledge-sharing, joint events, and technical capacity-building.
This institutional synergy has been visible in high-level forums such as the India-MENA Arbitration Summit in Hyderabad (February 2024) and the Dubai–India Business Forum in Mumbai (April 2025). These forums, attended by judges, arbitrators, and policymakers from both jurisdictions—including India’s Attorney General—have underlined a strong governmental and institutional push towards regional arbitration leadership.
Cross-participation in global arbitration events like those hosted by the ICC and CDRi further reflects the growing maturity and alignment between Indian and UAE arbitral practices. Institutions in both nations frequently cross-reference each other’s procedural rules and are actively involved in training programs and speaker exchanges.
A Quiet Integration Gathers Momentum
India and the UAE are progressively building a robust and reliable cross-border arbitration partnership. The legal ecosystem is maturing through a combination of treaty-led clarity, institutional cooperation, and judicial evolution. India’s BIT framework and ongoing reforms, alongside the UAE’s advanced arbitral institutions and pro-enforcement judiciary, are paving the way for greater legal predictability. For businesses and investors, this translates to increased confidence in arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute resolution across the India–UAE corridor. As institutional bridges strengthen and legal ambiguities get addressed, both jurisdictions are poised to become arbitration-friendly hubs in the region. The continuing evolution of this legal partnership holds significant promise for shaping the future of commercial dispute resolution in the Global South.
Disclaimer: This article is general in nature and is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice. Please contact the author(s) for specific legal advice in this regard.