Shivam Pandey serves as Founding Partner at AjaiAnand Law Offices, where he focuses on international arbitration, commercial disputes, insolvency, and competition law. Over the past nine years, including a formative tenure at a premier arbitration boutique, he has advised on complex, high-value cross-border matters and led enforcement actions exceeding ₹3,500 crore. He has appeared before courts and tribunals across India, Singapore, and the United States. His practice covers emergency arbitration, corporate insolvency under the IBC, and sophisticated commercial litigation, with regular appearances before the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and leading international arbitration institutions.
In an exclusive conversation with The Interview World, Pandey identifies critical structural gaps in India’s arbitration ecosystem vis-à-vis global hubs such as Singapore. He distils key lessons from landmark disputes, including the Amazon–Future Group case, and offers sharp insights into major insolvency proceedings such as Bhushan Steel and Jaypee Infratech.
Moreover, he articulates a disciplined approach to aligning legal strategy with commercial imperatives in multi-billion-value disputes. He also examines emerging trends in antitrust litigation, particularly those involving global technology companies operating in India. In addition, he evaluates the growing role of technology, spanning AI, data analytics, and legal tech, in reshaping modern arbitration and dispute resolution.
Further, he defines the non-negotiable competencies for young lawyers aiming to specialize in international arbitration. Finally, he assesses India’s trajectory as a prospective global arbitration hub over the next decade and outlines the reforms essential to realizing that ambition.
What follows are the key takeaways from this incisive conversation.
Q: What structural gaps do you still see in India’s arbitration ecosystem compared to global hubs like Singapore?
A: Let me state this plainly: India’s arbitration challenge does not stem from deficient law. Parliament has amended the statute, the Supreme Court of India has issued pro-arbitration rulings, and expert committees continue to recommend reforms. Yet the system underperforms. The real constraint is a structural deficit in human capital, compounded by institutional habits we have chosen not to dismantle.
Consider the numbers. India ranks among the world’s largest commercial economies, yet its pool of trained arbitration professionals, arbitrators, specialist counsel, tribunal secretaries, and real-time transcriptionists, remains disproportionately small. A limited cohort of retired judges brings doctrinal authority; however, adjudicative excellence does not automatically translate into commercial fluency. Litigation rewards determining who is right; arbitration demands a sharper inquiry into what the transaction intended to achieve and how best to preserve, unwind, or compensate for its disruption. That distinction requires a different, market-oriented skill set.
Equally telling is the absence of professional support infrastructure. In mature jurisdictions such as Singapore, tribunal secretaries operate as standard extensions of the tribunal, and real-time transcription ensures precision and efficiency. India, by contrast, still treats these functions with suspicion or neglect. This is not a technological constraint; it is a failure to professionalize.
More troubling is the emergence of what I would call “jugaad arbitration.” In practice, some financial institutions appear to maintain de facto relationships with arbitrators, facilitating unilateral appointments, predictable interim orders, and expedited enforcement through informal channels. This is unlawful. It persists because formal enforcement remains protracted; when courts delay, parties construct workarounds. Those workarounds, in turn, erode institutional credibility, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of mistrust.
Procedural inefficiency compounds the problem. Fixed hearing schedules, standard in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, give way in India to elastic timetables where a 10 a.m. hearing may not commence for hours. Parallel court interventions, Section 9 applications, anti-arbitration injunctions, and Section 34 challenges, do not merely slow proceedings; they undermine arbitration’s commercial purpose.
Finally, enforcement architecture remains antiquated. The Code of Civil Procedure offers award debtors multiple procedural escape routes, enabling delay as strategy. A nineteenth-century framework cannot anchor twenty-first-century commercial enforcement. India will credibly claim hub status only when conduct aligns with aspiration, when parties stop reflexively litigating against the very arbitrations they initiate.
Q: In landmark matters like Amazon–Future Group, what key lessons should Indian corporates draw about drafting shareholder agreements and dispute resolution clauses?
A: The Amazon–Future dispute, spanning five years, multiple courts, regulators, and arbitral forums, has now concluded. Its financial scale underscores a critical distinction: legal success does not guarantee commercial recovery.
First, prioritize structural clarity across interconnected agreements. Amazon embedded its rights in one entity but intended them to extend to another. That layered design forced courts to invoke the Group of Companies doctrine to bind non-signatories to arbitration. Although the approach ultimately held, it generated prolonged jurisdictional uncertainty. Therefore, if rights must travel across group entities, state that intent explicitly. Do not depend on doctrines that may vary by bench.
Second, abandon static, long-horizon assumptions. The deal relied on projected FDI liberalization, sustained retail expansion, and a business expected to grow into its valuation. COVID-19 invalidated those assumptions almost overnight. Consequently, modern investment documents must incorporate periodic, mandate-driven reviews. While businesses may pursue long-term strategies, the underlying documentation must remain adaptive.
Third, design disputes architecture at the transaction stage. The matter proceeded simultaneously before Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the Competition Commission of India, among others. Parallel proceedings produced fragmented timelines and, at times, inconsistent outcomes. Engage disputes counsel early, alongside transactional lawyers, to anticipate and streamline multi-forum risk.
Fourth, plan enforcement with precision. An emergency award delivers limited value without executable pathways. Early attempts to enforce such relief under Section 17(2) exposed procedural gaps, even at the registry level. Although Indian law now recognizes emergency arbitration, enforcement still depends on court processes. Accordingly, build realistic timelines, anticipate interim applications, and avoid drafting structures that invite jurisdictional conflict.
The conclusion is straightforward: a shareholder agreement is not a relationship document; it is a crisis instrument. Draft it for the transaction’s most adverse scenario, not its most optimistic projection.
Q: In insolvency matters such as Bhushan Steel and Jaypee Infratech, what systemic strengths and weaknesses have you observed in the IBC regime?
A: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code marked a significant legislative advance. It introduced a unified framework, imposed time-bound resolution, and vested commercial decision-making in the Committee of Creditors, largely insulated from judicial overreach. The design was sound; however, implementation has faltered.
As of September 2025, average CIRP completion stretched to 688 days, excluding litigation delays. The statutory 330-day limit exists largely in theory. Meanwhile, most National Company Law Tribunal benches operate on reduced schedules, and creditor recoveries average roughly 37 paise per rupee. These indicators do not reflect a robust insolvency regime; instead, they reveal a system functioning as a slow and costly recovery mechanism.
Consequently, stakeholders now deploy CIRP strategically rather than rehabilitatively. Much like arbitration, the process itself becomes punitive.
What India requires is a credible Debtor-in-Possession model, akin to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Retaining management under supervision would preserve enterprise value, ensure continuity, and reposition insolvency as a tool for recovery rather than retribution.
Q: How do you approach balancing legal strategy with commercial realities in disputes involving billions in value?
A: I begin with a clear premise: the client does not engage me to learn the law. They run the business; I absorb legal complexity. Therefore, I analyse the regulatory landscape and translate it into two outcomes: what is permissible and what is not.
In practice, I define green lines and red lines. Green lines mark strategic latitude, jurisdictional choices, procedural levers, negotiation room, and settlement design. Conversely, red lines impose hard constraints: statutory prohibitions, judicial limits, and exposures that trigger downstream liability. The client decides within these boundaries; I ensure the boundaries are precise and intelligible.
In high-value disputes, legal merit and commercial outcome often diverge. A strong case may still face weak enforcement or time horizons the business cannot sustain. Accordingly, decisions on settlement, timing, and acceptable outcomes become as critical as litigation strategy.
With large corporates, we operate as co-strategists alongside in-house counsel. With SMEs, we function as fractional general counsel, integrated early, identifying risks, shaping transactions, and managing disputes before they crystallize.
The best commercial disputes lawyer is one you rarely need to call after the fact.
Q: What trends are you observing in antitrust litigation, especially involving global technology companies operating in India?
A: The Competition Commission of India has become assertive, and Big Tech now responds accordingly. The Google Android case set the template: a ₹1,337 crore penalty, targeted behavioural remedies that reshaped the Android ecosystem, and appellate scrutiny culminating before the Supreme Court of India. Subsequently, in 2025, Google settled the Android TV matter, the first settlement under Indian antitrust law, paid ₹20 crore, and agreed to unbundle Play Store licensing. This does not close a cycle; it opens one.
Moreover, enforcement is shifting from reactive action to prospective regulation. The proposed Digital Competition Bill would designate Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises and impose ex ante obligations, prohibiting self-preferencing, curbing data advantages, and mandating interoperability, akin to the Digital Markets Act.
Accordingly, the compliance calculus has changed. Firms must design business models for the regime being built now, not the one that exists today.
Q: What role does technology, such as AI, data analytics, and legal tech, play in modern arbitration and dispute resolution practices?
A: Technology in dispute resolution is evolving along two distinct tracks; conflating them obscures their impact.
First, efficiency infrastructure is already transforming practice. AI-driven tools now streamline document review, contract analysis, timeline reconstruction, and evidence management. Large-scale arbitrations that once consumed months of manual effort now progress in days. Moreover, predictive analytics, though not definitive, provide a structured basis to assess litigation risk and refine settlement strategy. These tools are not theoretical; leading global practices deploy them routinely.
Second, the notion of AI as a decision-maker requires greater caution. Online dispute resolution platforms show promise for low-value claims, and certain sectors already employ algorithmic first-instance decisions. However, complex disputes, featuring intricate facts, multi-party contracts, and high stakes, still demand human judgment.
In India, the constraint lies not in adjudication but in supporting infrastructure. Core systems, real-time transcription, secure data environments, and robust virtual hearing capabilities, remain underdeveloped.
Accordingly, firms integrate legal technology as discipline, not optics. Yet, strategic judgment, not automation, continues to determine outcomes.
Q: For young lawyers aspiring to specialize in international arbitration, what skills or exposure do you consider non-negotiable?
A: The candid reality is this: entry into serious international arbitration in India remains highly selective. A limited set of leading institutions, most notably the National Law Universities, feeds a small, competitive talent pool. Moreover, the discipline demands more than legal proficiency; it requires interdisciplinary capability that conventional legal training often underemphasizes.
First, prioritize contractual mastery over case law alone. Arbitration is fundamentally contract-centric. You must read shareholder agreements, joint venture structures, and commercial contracts with precision, identifying risk allocation, dispute mechanisms, and enforcement pathways instinctively.
Next, treat procedure as strategy. Frameworks such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, along with institutional rules like Singapore International Arbitration Centre and International Chamber of Commerce, are not technicalities; they are tactical instruments. Effective use demands judgment.
Equally, develop cross-border fluency. Competitions such as Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot expose you to real procedural culture.
Further, build commercial literacy. Understand financial statements and deal structures. Finally, refine written advocacy and cultivate comfort with uncertainty; premature certainty undermines strategic depth.
Q: How do you see India positioning itself as a global arbitration hub over the next decade, and what reforms are critical to achieving that?
A: Let me be precise: India will not become a global arbitration hub through legislation alone. Parliament has repeatedly amended the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and reform proposals continue to proliferate. Yet the constraint is not statutory design. Instead, the deficit lies in institutional culture, enforcement credibility, and trained human capital.
Start with enforcement. The Code of Civil Procedure requires structural overhaul. Award enforcement must conclude in weeks, not years; otherwise, parties will continue to prefer seats such as Singapore.
Next, impose time discipline. Fixed hearing schedules, strict allocations, and limited adjournments must become standard. This demands judicial resolve, not further amendment.
Further, professionalize arbitrator accreditation. India needs a rigorous, merit-based certification pathway, comparable to Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, to ensure consistency and commercial expertise.
Equally, build the support ecosystem: tribunal secretaries, transcription services, and institutional case management. Without these, efficiency remains aspirational.
Finally, curb routine judicial interference. While the Supreme Court of India has advanced arbitration jurisprudence, lower courts must enforce stricter thresholds against anti-arbitration injunctions.
Initiatives like GIFT IFSC signal progress. However, isolated excellence cannot compensate for systemic weakness. Execution, not aspiration, will determine outcomes.
