Indian courts do not discriminate against Chinese companies and have granted them relief by enforcing arbitral awards and freezing assets, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata said on Monday..Khambata was speaking at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Symposium 2026 during a panel titled Cross-Border Disputes across China, India and the US: Strategy, Enforcement and Risk..The session was moderated by Clifford Chance partner Kabir Singh. The other panellists were 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 said that Indian courts remained fair and agnostic about the nationality of parties appearing before them.“I don’t see any bias in favour of our nationals against any particular national. Chinese companies have won enforcement of awards. They have won Section 9 interim injunctions to freeze assets in Indian courts.”Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows courts to grant interim protection before, during or after arbitral proceedings. Such relief may include orders preserving disputed property, securing the amount involved in the dispute or preventing a party from disposing of its assets..Khambata said that this approach would continue despite the political tensions between India and China.“That should be so. But, of course, the political tensions are resulting in a complete reduction of trading relationships.”Geopolitical and political considerations were presently overriding the economic potential of the two countries, he added. Khambata expressed hope that India and China would eventually expand their commercial engagement.“I look forward to the day when both these two nations trade with each other. It will become potentially the greatest trading relationship the world has ever seen.”Khambata also addressed the effect of sanctions and tariffs on international trade and arbitration. He said that unilateral economic measures had historically failed and were eventually withdrawn after causing conflict.“Unilateral sanctions or tariffs have never worked. If you study history, they’ve always ultimately been retracted and withdrawn and they’ve only led to conflict. They’ve never really worked.”.“I look forward to the day when both these two nations trade with each other. It will become potentially the greatest trading relationship the world has ever seen.”Darius Khambata.He also said that disputes involving sanctions and tariffs required specialised arbitral tribunals because such cases raised legal and commercial questions extending across several jurisdictions.The international arbitration community presently lacked an adequate number of arbitrators equipped to decide such matters, Khambata observed. However, he expected the field to evolve as tribunals gained greater experience with sanctions, export controls and tariff-related disputes..From the Chinese perspective, Tang said that sanctions-related disputes required careful selection of arbitrators. Businesses preferred tribunals with sanctions expertise, familiarity with Asia and an understanding of how Chinese companies operated under regulatory and commercial constraints.She added that sanctions often disrupted relationships between businesses that wished to continue trading. This had made companies more receptive to direct negotiations and mediation aimed at preserving their commercial relationships.Li said that Chinese companies also examined an arbitrator’s track record, professional background and familiarity with China. Neutrality remained important, particularly in disputes involving Chinese and Western parties. Companies were also drafting more specific force majeure protections into contracts with Western counterparties to address the possibility of sanctions..Speaking from the US perspective, Sobota said that multinational companies principally sought neutral decision-makers who would treat sanctions as a commercial disruption rather than allow a party's nationality to colour the dispute.He also said that US courts generally interpreted force majeure clauses strictly. Courts examined the contractual language and whether the disruptive event had been foreseeable and could have been allocated between the parties. The governing law could, therefore, decisively affect the result.
