From left: Hashem Al Aidarous and Rakshit Akshay Jha
The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) is emerging as a strong preference among Indian companies to settle commercial matters. Al Aidarous Advocates & Legal Consultants partner Hashem Al Aidarous, who has more than 10 years of experience in commercial arbitration in Dubai, and colleague Rakshit Akshay Jha, an associate who has been practising since 2017 explain this shift.
Q1. Is there a recent shift of Indian business matters being dealt with from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to the DIAC and why?
The shift is structural. The India-UAE CEPA [Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement] doubled bilateral trade to USD83.7 billion within three years, creating organic arbitration demand. The DIAC’s 2022 transformation, establishing DIFC as a default seat and introducing expedited procedures, modernised its offering precisely when Indian businesses needed sophisticated arbitration services.
Dubai’s strategic location bridges Europe and Asia, while the UAE’s stable political environment and strengthened India-UAE diplomatic ties, creating unprecedented commercial confidence. The DIAC also serves as neutral ground for Indian disputes involving Saudi and other Gulf partners, who find Dubai’s proximity and familiarity more comfortable.
This is not zero-sum displacement but market expansion with geographic logic. The SIAC remains dominant for Southeast Asian disputes with 180+ Indian cases in 2024; and the DIAC is capturing the growing India-Gulf commercial flows.
Q2. Which is more beneficial overall for Indian matters where elements of procedure, cost, timeline, flexibility and enforceability are concerned?
Both institutions show parity. For million-dollar disputes, costs are comparable at mid-five figure USD amounts. Regular proceedings average 12 to 18 months; expedited procedures deliver awards within three to six months. Both appoint emergency arbitrators within 24 hours.
Neither holds decisive procedural advantage. Both accommodate multilingual proceedings, with the DIAC offering the advantage of Arabic language arbitrators crucial for Gulf region disputes. The DIAC defaults to the DIFC’s common law; the SIAC operates under Singapore’s, both familiar to Indian lawyers.
The 1.5-hour time difference between Delhi and Dubai facilitates virtual hearings, with Dubai’s Saturday-Sunday weekend now aligning with international practice. Enforceability depends on asset location: identical New York Convention routes for Indian assets, direct local enforcement for UAE-based assets through the DIAC.
Q3. How does cultural influences, negotiation styles, expectations of judicial involvement, attitudes toward settlement, play a role in the shift, if any? Are there any key similarities or differences that Indian businesses should be aware of when choosing an arbitration centre?
The Indian and Arabian peninsulas share maritime trade connections dating back hundreds of years. Dubai’s cultural fabric tells a story beyond legal frameworks.
Both cultures prioritise relationships and trust in business dealings, understanding not every breach is malicious. The ubiquitous karak chai sessions mirror India’s chai pe charcha tradition, creating informal resolution spaces that formal arbitration acknowledges but cannot replicate. This cultural bridge explains why Indian businesses view the DIAC as natural extension of regional operations.
The DIAC’s modernisation preserves this ethos, offering structured mediation windows, encouraging settlement discussions even after arbitration commences, acknowledging preservation of business relationships often matters more than winning disputes. The DIAC offers a wide list of arbitrators who understand the nuanced requirements of parties from the subcontinent.
Q4. What are your thoughts on the DIAC as a competitor for Indian business against the SIAC? What specific reforms or innovations at the DIAC would make it a more credible competitor to the SIAC in the eyes of Indian businesses?
Framing the DIAC versus the SIAC as competitors misunderstands the landscape. It’s like asking the Arabian Sea to compete with the Bay of Bengal when both are essential to India’s maritime trade.
The real question concerns commercial geography. When Indian companies operating in Dubai, with UAE assets and Gulf operations, choose Singapore arbitration, they are following outdated templates rather than practical sense. Like flying Dubai to Delhi via Singapore, it is possible but inefficient!
The future is not the DIAC versus the SIAC, but both are serving different needs.
Q5. In arbitrating both in India and internationally, what have you personally observed about the ease and efficiency of the arbitration process, from filing to final award, and how does enforceability compare across these forums?
Indian arbitration now has modern institutions, pro-arbitration judiciary, and expedited procedures. Recent interactions with members of leading Indian arbitral institutions confirm this transformation first hand.
Yet perception lags reality. International arbitration’s enduring advantage is not procedural but psychological. The finality mindset, where arbitral decisions are genuinely respected rather than seen as preludes to litigation, remains its core appeal.
The gap is closing rapidly though. Every legal system has its own peculiarities.
