Views
Foreign Judgments and Indirect Jurisdiction in Dubai (UAE): One Step Forward, One Step Back?
I. Introduction:
In 2024, the Dubai Supreme Court rendered a significant decision on the issue of indirect jurisdiction under UAE law. Commenting on that decision (see here), I noted that it offered “a welcome, and a much-awaited clarification regarding what can be considered one of the most controversial requirements in the UAE enforcement system” (italic in the original).
The decision commented on here touches on the same issue. Yet rather than confirming the direction suggested in the above-mentioned decision, the Court regrettably reverted to its prior, more restrictive approach. This shift raises doubts about whether a consistent jurisprudence on indirect jurisdiction is taking shape, or whether the legal framework remains fragmented and unpredictable.
Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gate
Written by Tarasha Gupta, BALLB (Hons), Jindal Global Law School, and Saloni Khanderia, Professor, Jindal Global Law School (India)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) has become a preferred hub for hearing litigation and arbitration of international commercial disputes. Accordingly, many decisions from the SICC require recognition and enforcement in India.
In this light, a recent judgment from the Delhi High Court (“HC”) is a significant development providing relief to those wishing to enforce the SICC’s judgments in India. In Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd v. Parmod Kumar & Anr,[1] the HC has held that the SICC is a superior court under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). As a result, its judgments can be directly executed in India. That said, the HC ultimately held the judgment in question to be unenforceable, as it failed to meet the tests in Section 13 of the CPC.
This article breaks down the arguments and legal context behind the HC’s judgment. It also highlights how the case demonstrates flaws in India’s regime, which create difficulties not just for creditors trying to enforce foreign judgments in India, but also in enforcing India’s judgments abroad. Read more
Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India
Written by Samhith Malladi, Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England & Wales), and Senior Associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]; and Niyati Gandhi, Partner, Dispute Resolution, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]
The Recalibration of Enforcement Doctrine
The global campaign to enforce arbitral awards against the Republic of India arising from its long-running dispute with Devas Multimedia has witnessed a significant doctrinal shift in the treatment of sovereign immunity within the enforcement of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards.
To recall, the dispute arises from a contract entered in 2005 between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (Devas) and the Indian state-owned Antrix Corporation (Antrix), which was the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix had agreed to lease S-band spectrum to Devas to broadcast its multimedia services in India. Antrix terminated this contract in 2011 citing national security concerns. In a nutshell, the dispute spawned three concluded arbitrations – a commercial ICC arbitration between Devas and Antrix and two investor-state arbitrations between Devas’ shareholders and India under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) 1998 and the India-Germany BIT 1995. In 2022, Devas’ Mauritian shareholders commenced another investor-state arbitration against India under the India-Mauritius BIT in relation to India’s efforts to thwart the award against Antrix in the ICC arbitration, which currently remains pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. An overview of the various proceedings arising from this dispute has been previously discussed on this blog here. Read more
News
Launch of the Bahrain International Commercial Court
The Bahrain International Commercial Court (BICC) was launched on 5 November 2025. It joins the long established Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts and Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre in the Middle East as a specialist court devoted to resolving international commercial disputes and operating under special procedural rules.
The BICC was developed in partnership with the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). It shares many key features with the SICC such as a multinational bench, foreign counsel representation and use of the English language in proceedings. Of particular note is the appeal mechanism for BICC judgments; as discussed previously here, appeals from the BICC will be heard by the International Committee of the SICC.
ASADIP Conference Rio 2025 (report) and San Salvador 2026 date (20-23 October)
The ASADIP conference is an annual highlight of the discipline. The reports from the 2025 conference in Rio de Janeiro are now available, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, here
And the location and date for the 2026 have been set for San Salvador, El Salvador, 20-23 October. See you there.
Short report: Conference on Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law
On 17 October 2025, the EBS Law School in Oestrich-Winkel, Germany, hosted a conference Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law. The conference was organised by Professors Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School) as part of the Law Schools Global League Sustainable Global Value Chains Project (see also here).
The conference brought together a number of scholars specialised in private international law, company law, and contract law to discuss the role of private law and private international law in social, economic, and environmental sustainability within global value chains.
Keynote
Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) delivered the keynote lecture entitled “European Law for Global Value Chains – Human Rights Advancement or European Imperialism?” Professor Michaels addressed this question from a historical perspective. He related the historical roots of existing sourcing practices to contemporary supply chains, drawing on a wealth of theoretical insights. He further reflected on the conceptualisations that remain necessary for the legal discipline to contribute to addressing economic inequalities in contemporary global sourcing practices facilitated by interconnected chains of contracts.
After the keynote, several scholars provided insights into their current research, which resonated with various aspects of the keynote lecture. Read more