Darius Khambata: Indian Courts Show No Bias to Chinese Companies in Arbitration

• Senior Advocate Darius Khambata stated that Indian courts show no bias against Chinese companies.
• Indian courts have granted Chinese companies relief, including enforcing arbitral awards and freezing assets.
• This impartiality extends to interim injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
• Section 9 allows courts to grant protection before, during, or after arbitration, such as preserving property or securing disputed amounts.
• Khambata believes this fair approach will continue despite political tensions between India and China, which are reducing trade.

This clear distinction between political relations and judicial impartiality is paramount for understanding the current landscape of dispute resolution in India.

Senior Advocate Darius Khambata recently affirmed that Indian courts demonstrate no bias against Chinese companies, consistently extending legal remedies to them. Speaking on Monday at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Symposium 2026, Khambata specifically highlighted instances where Chinese entities have successfully obtained the enforcement of arbitral awards and secured orders to freeze assets within India. His remarks were delivered during a panel discussion titled "Cross-Border Disputes across China, India and the US: Strategy, Enforcement and Risk," a session moderated by Clifford Chance partner Kabir Singh, which also featured Three Crowns founding partner Luke Sobota, Alibaba Group’s Head of Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Investigations Li Jieyun, and Hui Zhong Law Firm Singapore head Hazel Tang.

Khambata further elaborated on the foundational principle guiding Indian courts, emphasizing their fair and agnostic approach concerning the nationality of parties appearing before them. He explicitly stated his observation that there is no discernible bias favoring Indian nationals over any specific foreign nationality, including Chinese companies. This judicial neutrality, he explained, has directly translated into tangible benefits for Chinese businesses seeking redress through the Indian legal system, particularly in the critical area of arbitration enforcement.

A key component of the legal relief accessible to Chinese companies, as detailed by Khambata, involves interim injunctions granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. These powerful injunctions enable Indian courts to provide essential interim protection at various stages of arbitral proceedings—whether before, during, or even following their conclusion. Such protective measures are fundamentally important for safeguarding the commercial interests of parties engaged in complex cross-border disputes.

The scope of relief available under Section 9 is comprehensive, encompassing orders designed to preserve disputed property, ensure the security of the financial amount central to a dispute, or prevent a party from liquidating, transferring, or otherwise disposing of its assets. Khambata specifically noted that Chinese companies have successfully utilized these provisions to freeze assets, unequivocally demonstrating the practical and impartial application of Indian legal frameworks to protect foreign commercial interests. This robust mechanism ensures that the integrity of potential arbitral awards is maintained throughout the dispute resolution process.

Despite the ongoing political tensions between India and China, Khambata expressed strong confidence that this impartial judicial approach will persist. He underscored that the Indian legal system's commitment to fairness and the rule of law transcends geopolitical dynamics, ensuring that commercial disputes are adjudicated solely on their legal merits, irrespective of the parties' nationalities. This steadfastness in applying established legal principles is a critical assurance for international businesses, including Chinese companies, contemplating or engaged in commercial activities in India.

However, Khambata also acknowledged the broader, undeniable impact of these political strains, observing that they are contributing to a complete reduction in trading relationships between the two nations. While the economic landscape and trade ties may be diminishing due to political factors, his remarks provide crucial reassurance that the Indian judiciary remains committed to its role as an unbiased arbiter, particularly in matters of arbitration enforcement and the provision of interim relief for Chinese companies. This clear distinction between political relations and judicial impartiality is paramount for understanding the current landscape of dispute resolution in India.

This statement provides crucial reassurance for legal professionals advising clients on commercial disputes in India involving Chinese entities. It indicates that Indian courts will continue to apply legal principles impartially, particularly in arbitration enforcement and interim relief under Section 9, despite geopolitical tensions, influencing dispute resolution strategy and risk assessment.

Source: Original reporting via a legal industry event