Introduction

Arbitration has become the foundation of alternative dispute resolution. It

offers a straightforward, private, and flexible way to settle commercial
disputes outside the traditional court system. Its global enforceability
under systems like the New York Convention makes it a popular choice for
international business transactions. Comparing the arbitration laws of
India and Singapore is crucial for understanding their legal environments.
Both have common law backgrounds, but they have developed differently.

India, as a growing economic power, is actively changing its arbitration

system through the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. This act was
amended in 2015, 2019, and 2021 to boost investor confidence and
reduce the backlog in the courts. These changes aim to meet international
standards, improving efficiency and promoting institutional arbitration. In
contrast, Singapore is a hub for global arbitration. It has a dual system
that includes the International Arbitration Act of 1994 for international
disputes and the Arbitration Act of 2001 for domestic issues. Singapore
stands out for its low judicial intervention and strong institutional support
through the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). This
analysis looks at their legal systems, procedures, enforcement processes,
and the role of the judiciary. It highlights Singapore's established
advantage and India's ongoing efforts to close the gap through legislative
and institutional changes.

Legal framework overview

INDIA’S ARBITRATION FRAMEWORK

India's arbitration system is governed by the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. This law harmonizes regulations for both
domestic and international arbitration and conciliation, taking inspiration
from the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Act has been updated in 2015,
2019, and 2021 to remove inefficiencies, limit judicial involvement, and
promote institutional arbitration. Key features include allowing parties to
choose their arbitrators, set rules of procedure, and determine the
arbitration location (Sections 20, 28). It also includes rules for getting
interim relief from courts or tribunals (Section 9) and enforcing awards as
court decrees (Sections 35-36).
The 2015 amendment clarified the public policy grounds for setting aside
awards. The 2019 amendment introduced time limits; arbitral awards
must be issued within 12 months but can be extended to 18 months
(Section 29A). The 2021 amendment provided more details on emergency
arbitration, though enforcing these provisions in foreign-seated
arbitrations remains limited.

Institutional arbitration is supported by organizations like the Mumbai

Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC). However, many prefer ad hoc arbitration due to
cost savings and familiarity. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Bill, 2024, suggests major changes, including officially
recognizing emergency arbitration, redefining "court" for domestic
disputes, and measures to speed up proceedings. These changes aim to
align India with international best practices, despite ongoing challenges
from judicial delays and a lack of skilled arbitrators. India's system offers
cost-effectiveness and a large legal market but struggles with procedural
delays and inconsistent enforcement, particularly regarding foreign
awards.

SINGAPORE ARBITRATION FRAMEWORK

Singapore's dual arbitration system includes the International Arbitration

Act (IAA), 1994, for international commercial arbitrations, and the
Arbitration Act (AA), 2001, for domestic cases. The IAA follows the
UNCITRAL Model Law and New York Convention to support smooth
enforcement. The AA emphasizes party choice, defining the arbitral
tribunal and award while limiting judicial interference. Both laws promote
efficiency through interim relief (S. 12, IAA), quicker procedures, and strict
timelines.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) handles cases under

its 2025 Rules, which include summary disposal, data protection, and
disclosures for third-party funding [34, 35]. Proposed 2025 IAA
amendments suggest default rules for the law of the place, summary
disposal powers, and requirements for appeal permissions to reduce
frivolous challenges .
The government backs Singapore's system with measures like tax
exemptions, making it a preferred venue for international disputes. The
environment in Singapore features minimal judicial intervention, only
stepping in for fraud or violations of natural justice (S. 24, IAA; Art. 34,
Model Law). The average time for dispute resolution is 11.7 months,
highlighting efficiency. Confidentiality, sealed hearings, and impartiality
also enhance Singapore's reputation as a global arbitration hub, even
though high costs may deter small claims.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Legal Basis and Scope
India and Singapore both follow the UNCITRAL Model Law, prioritizing
party autonomy and international norms. India's Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, governs both domestic and international
arbitrations under a single law. This creates a unified but rigid system. The
Act is referenced as Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, India
Code (1996). After the 2015 amendments, judicial intervention was
reduced, timelines were introduced (S. 29A), and institutional arbitration
was encouraged . This is detailed in the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, No.33 of 2019, India Code (2019). The proposed 2024
Bill aims to recognize emergency arbitration and clarify jurisdictional
issues, showing international goals. The absence of separation between
domestic and international arbitration results in procedural overlaps.

Singapore's dual system offers clarity. The International Arbitration Act

(IAA) handles international disputes, while the Arbitration Act (AA) deals
with domestic issues. The IAA's alignment with the New York Convention
ensures strong enforcement, and the AA simplifies domestic processes.
Proposed amendments to the IAA in 2025, including default governing law
rules and limits on appeals, aim to improve efficiency.Singapore's investor-
friendly rules, such as tax incentives and a default seat in Singapore,
surpass India's setup.

Key court decisions highlight these differences.

In India, the case Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical

Services Inc. (BALCO), (2012) 9 SCC 552, limited court authority over
foreign-seated arbitrations under Part I, promoting non-interference [15,
16]. The decision in Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH, (2014) 5 SCC 1,
reinforced the idea that parties can choose the seat.

In Singapore, the case PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara

International BV, [2013] SGCA 57, supported the principle of competence-
competence, which allows tribunals to decide on jurisdiction with limited
oversight (§ 3, IAA) [13]. This is detailed in the International Arbitration
Act, Cap. 143A, S. 3 (1994).

Institutions and Procedures

India's environment includes more than 35 institutions, such as MCIA and
DIAC. However, it lacks legal mandates for institutional arbitration. This
leads to the prevalence of ad hoc arbitration. While it is cost-effective, it
often takes longer than the 12-month period set by S 29A due to
extensions and delays. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of
1996, S 29A, India Code (1996) outlines processes that focus on evidence
production (S 47,S 56) and limited appeals (S 37). Inefficiencies remain
due to underdeveloped institutions and a shortage of arbitrators. The
2024 Bill proposes grading institutions and rewarding expertise.

Singapore's SIAC is a global leader, managing heavy caseloads. In 2016,

they handled 343 cases compared to India’s 240 in 2017. They have
efficient procedures. The 2025 SIAC Rules introduce summary dismissal,
data protection, and expedited procedures for disputes over SGD 1
million. Arbitration begins with a filing through the SIAC Registrar, unlike
the notice receipt method in India (S 21). Singapore’s declarations of
arbitrator competence ensure quality.

There are notable differences in cases. India's case, Ssangyong

Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of
India, (2019) 15 SCC 131, limited public policy grounds under § 34 to
reduce judicial excess. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of
1996, S 34, India Code (1996) supports this. In Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S
ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, (2024), the differences between seat
and venue were clarified. In Singapore, the case BZW and another v. BZV,
[2022] SLR 1080, addressed arbitrator impartiality under SIAC Rule 10,
improving procedural strength.

Judicial intervention and enforcement highlight the differences between

the two regimes. India experienced excessive intervention before 2015.
Amendments have allowed interim relief for foreign-seated arbitrations
and reduced grounds for public policy . The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, No. 26 of 1996, S 9,S 34, India Code (1996) documents these
changes. Delays in enforcing foreign awards continue due to backlogs.
While awards are enforceable like decrees (S 36), obstacles remain. In
Singapore, the judiciary intervenes only for fraud or breaches of natural
justice (§ 24, IAA; Art.34, Model Law), and enforcement occurs within 11.7
months. The International Arbitration Act, Cap. 143A, S 24 (1994) details
this process. Proposed amendments for the 2025 IAA will require appeal
leave. Singapore's membership in the New York Convention ensures
strong enforcement, unlike India's challenges. Singapore holds closed
hearings to guarantee confidentiality, while India's hearings are public.

In India, ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 broadly interpreted
public policy. This was later narrowed by Venture Global Engineering v.
Satyam Computer Services Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 660. In Singapore, CIX v.
DGN, [2025] SGCA 10, applied res judicata to exclude relitigated claims.
The case CVG v. CVH, [2022] SGHC 249, denied enforcement of foreign
emergency awards without a legal basis.

Key Features Comparison

Aspects India(Arbitration Singapore

Act,1996) (IAA,1994;AA,2001)
Legal Basis UNICITRAL Model Law[2] UNICITRAL Model
Law[48,49]
Key Institution MCIA,DIAC,Ad Hoc SIAC, Institutional
Dominant [61] Focus[34]
Timeline 12-18 months (S. 29A) ~11.7 months[60]
[53]
Judicial Intervention Moderate, Reduced Minimal (§ 24, IAA)
Post-2015 [59]
[59]
Emergency Limited, Proposed in Supported, SIAC Rules
Arbitration 2024 Bill [35]
[50]
Key Cases BALCO (2012) 9 SCC PT First Media [2013]
552, SGCA 57, CIX
Ssangyong (2019) 15 v. DGN [2025] SGCA
SCC 131 10 [13, 1]
[15]

CRITICAL EVALUATION
Singapore's arbitration system is a global benchmark, known for its
efficiency, neutrality, and institutional strength. The SIAC's 2025 Rules,
minimal judicial intervention, and government support, including tax
relief, make it the leading destination in Asia. Cases like BZW v. BZV,
(2022)1 SLR 1080, and CIX v. DGN, (2025) SGCA 10, show its solid
procedures and enforcement abilities. Features such as third-party funding
and summary disposal enhance access and help manage the costs of
larger disputes. The combination of a dual structure and judicial restraint
fosters confidence, making Singapore an appealing choice for
international arbitration.

India's system is growing but still faces challenges. Changes made after
2015 reduced judicial overreach, as seen in BALCO, (2012) 9 SCC 552, and
Ssangyong, (2019) 15 SCC 131. They also introduced timelines with S
29A, but issues with enforcement delays and reliance on ad hoc processes
hinder its competitiveness. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of
1996, S 29A, India Code (1996), is foundational, but MCIA-type institutions
are promising yet underdeveloped compared to SIAC. Judicial backlog and
limited expertise are barriers that the 2024 Bill's emergency arbitration
provisions could potentially overcome.

Singapore's experience offers valuable lessons for India. A dual framework

could streamline processes, statutory provisions might strengthen
MCIA/DIAC, and incentives for arbitrators could attract expertise. Reducing
judicial involvement, as demonstrated in Singapore's CIX v. DGN, [2025]
SGCA 10, along with maintaining confidentiality, is crucial. While
Singapore's system has benefited from decades of refinement, India's
reforms can leverage this growth to become a regional hub.

Conclusion

Singapore's arbitration infrastructure has two Acts, SIAC's 2025 Rules, and
limited judicial interference. This makes it a world leader, as seen in cases
like PT First Media, (2013)SGCA 57, and CIX v. DGN, (2025) SGCA 10.
India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with amendments and
the 2024 Bill, is making progress, but this comes with delays and empty
positions . Cases like BALCO, (2012) 9 SCC 552, and Ssangyong (2019) 15
SCC 131 show some improvement, but enforcement issues still exist .
Singapore's strong enforcement, confidentiality, and government support
provide a model for India. By adopting clearer rules, offering incentives to
professionals, and reducing judicial intervention, India can leverage its
cost advantages and market size. This would help position India as a
competitive arbitration center and enhance investor confidence after
2025.

Bibliography
Statutes & Legislative Documents

- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, India Code (1996).

- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 3 of 2015, India Code

(2015).

- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 33 of 2019, India Code

(2019).

- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 3 of 2021, India Code

(2021).

- Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, Ministry of

Law and Justice,

Government of India.

- International Arbitration Act, Cap. 143A, Singapore Statutes (1994).

- Arbitration Act, Cap. 10, Singapore Statutes (2001).

- International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 (Singapore).

International InstrumentsUNCITRAL Model Law on International

Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments

as adopted in 2006.

- Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral

Awards, June 10,

1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (“New York Convention”).

Cases (India)

Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO),

(2012) 9 SCC

552 (India).

- Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH, (2014) 5 SCC 1 (India).

- Ssangyong Eng’g & Constr. Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Auth. of India,
(2019) 15 SCC 131

(India).

- Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Tech. Ltd., (2024) (India).

- ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India).

- Venture Global Eng’g v. Satyam Computer Servs. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 660
(India).

Cases (Singapore)

- PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara Int’l BV, SGCA 57 (Singapore).

- BZW & anor. v. BZV, SLR 1080 (Singapore).

- CIX v. DGN, SGCA 10 (Singapore).

- CVG v. CVH, SGHC 249 (Singapore).

Institutional Documents

- Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Rules (2025).

- Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, MCIA Rules.

- Delhi International Arbitration Centre, DIAC Rules.

- Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Annual Report 2016.