India’s emergence as a preferred seat of arbitration will determine the global growth of Indian arbitral centres, said Neeti Sachdeva, Registrar and Secretary General of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), at a panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026.

Speaking at the session co-hosted by Stewarts and JSA, Sachdeva said that the focus must shift to strengthening India’s position as a seat.

“The challenge is not any other institution. The challenge is that India has to grow as a preferred seat in itself. And when foreign companies feel confident enough to seat their arbitrations in India, I think the presence of more and more Indian institutions will grow globally,” she said.

Sachdeva emphasised that the rise of regional institutions is not displacing global centres, but expanding the arbitration ecosystem. She observed that this growth offers parties greater choice and contributes to the development of local arbitration frameworks.

The panel, moderated by Stewarts head of International Arbitration and India Practice Sherina Petit and JSA Partner Dhiraj Nair, brought together David Joseph KC of Essex Court Chambers; Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) President and Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji; Director General of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Kevin Nash; Counsel at the ICC International Court of Arbitration Colleen Parker Bacquet; Director and Head of South Asia at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Shweta Bidhuri; Secretary General and Registrar of DIAC Robert Stephen; and Sachdeva.

Nash cautioned against viewing arbitral institutions through the narrow lens of cost schedules, stressing the importance of efficiency instead.

“A well-run arbitration at an institution that has a slightly higher schedule of fees is almost always going to be cheaper…There is a direct relationship between duration and the actual costs of an arbitration...In 2026, users are really going more towards value in the experience of case management," he added.

Bacquet highlighted the ICC’s global structure and pushed back against the perception that it caters only to large, international disputes.

“A misconception is that we are a big institution for big cases seated in Paris or London. But in fact, 40% of our cases last year were under $4 million,” she said,

She also noted that 31% of their cases are between parties of the same country.

Bidhuri similarly addressed common assumptions about SIAC’s operations. She added that parties “quite often” choose SIAC rules while opting for seats elsewhere.

“One misconception would probably be to think that all SIAC cases are seated in Singapore, which is not the case,” she said.

From the Middle East perspective, Stephen pointed to DIAC’s increasing internationalisation. He noted that the institution handles disputes involving parties from over 60 different jurisdictions.

“The misconception that I hear the most is that it's mainly for local and Middle Eastern disputes. The reality is that we actually administer a large number of complex cross-border disputes."

Sachdeva, speaking about MCIA’s positioning, said that the institution aims to provide a credible domestic alternative for both Indian and foreign parties.

“Idea is to provide parties not only in India, outside Indian parties doing cross border disputes, to have a credible institution back at home that they can rely on,” she said.

She also addressed common misconceptions about MCIA’s structure and scope, noting that the institution was already administering cases with foreign parties and overseas seats.

“One that we are managed and run by the government which we are not. MCIA is a completely independent neutral private trust…And the second misconception…is that MCIA is only for Indian parties to be seated in India or in Mumbai,” she said.

The panel also discussed the continuing importance of institutional arbitration alongside ad hoc proceedings. Joseph noted that while users primarily seek efficiency and timely outcomes, institutions also play a role in addressing delays in the constitution of tribunals and the delivery of awards.

The speakers broadly agreed that institutional support remains valuable in managing procedural issues and ensuring smoother conduct of proceedings.

On administrative oversight, Bacquet explained that scrutiny processes act as a safeguard for enforceability, with institutions reviewing awards to identify procedural gaps and compliance issues.

Nash added that while approaches may differ, institutional review is ultimately geared towards ensuring practical and enforceable outcomes.

Costs were another key area of discussion, with Bidhuri and Stephen highlighting that ad valorem models offer predictability for parties, particularly in mid-value disputes.

At the same time, Nash pointed out that hourly-rate systems allow for closer monitoring of arbitrators' time and efficiency. The speakers suggested that in practice, institutions often balance both approaches.

The panel also touched on the growing use of emergency arbitration. Institutions reported increasing reliance on urgent interim relief mechanisms, with faster timelines and structured processes making them a viable alternative to courts in time-sensitive disputes.