Introduction
In 1991, with the adoption of the LPG reforms, India made significant economic changes to boost business activity and transition towards a free market system. This era of liberalisation led to the generation of tremendous private and foreign investments in India. One of the sweeping changes undertaken as a result of such a policy was integration of India with the global value chains giving rise to significant investment diversification. While international transactions rose in volume and complexity, they directly set the stage for a rise in cross border disputes. Moreover, globalisation of the economy turned India into an emerging centre for international trade, investment and litigation with international disputes becoming an integral part of contemporary legal practice. Today, being the fourth largest economy globally and a dominant player in the global e-commerce market, India is simply leading this shift[1].
However, multinational corporations and Indian businesses situated abroad confront complex legal disputes which involve numerous jurisdictions, governing laws, and regulatory framework. Such disputes require legal interventions that transcend domestic litigation and collaboration with legal systems of various countries.
At the junction of these developments lies a significant regulatory shift: 2025 BCI rules for foreign lawyers and law firms[2]. These reforms aim to open up India’s legal market for foreign lawyers and law firms to enable dynamic growth in the Indian legal industry. This involves crucial ramifications for how international disputes would be handled and resolved in the years to come.
This article examines how jurisprudence has evolved as regards to cross border disputes and foreign linked litigation in India. This article also entails the new regulatory framework for foreign lawyers in India and ascertains what these changes mean for international cases and the Indian legal profession in general.
Cross border disputes: A review
Cross border disputes are legal conflicts that arise when parties are located in different countries resulting in jurisdictional and legal complexities. Such disputes are fundamentally complex and require a profound understanding of legal systems of both domestic and international spheres. These disputes often arise due to breach of contractual obligations, investment disputes, conflicts relating to JV’s between different entities or other business/trade related disputes. Taking recourse to traditional courts in such cases can prove to be expensive and uncertain. Due to the nature of such conflicts, there is a growing reliance on mechanisms like international arbitration and other ADR methods such as mediation and conciliation. However, amongst all the ADR methods, International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) is the most preferred method as it enables faster resolution of disputes offering neutrality, confidentiality and more flexibility.
However, dealing with cross border disputes requires careful consideration of several key factors like jurisdiction, governing law, legal representation and cultural differences, among others. Determination of jurisdiction in cross border disputes is one of the biggest challenges as there is a lack of uniform legal system and multiple courts can claim authority creating overlapping claims. To resolve this, a foreign seat of arbitration is often designated by modern contracts where parties usually opt for foreign seats like Singapore, Paris or London to ensure neutrality and universal enforceability. In such cases, the seat of arbitration is of paramount importance which ultimately decides the applicable law governing the arbitration proceedings as well as supervisory jurisdiction. In Mankatsu Impex vs Airvisual Ltd, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 301[3], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a seat is a vital aspect of any arbitration proceeding as it determines the applicable law when deciding the proceeding. The case also made a distinction between seat and venue and reiterated that the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. Further, the debate between seat and venue was finally clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balaji Steel Trade vs Fludor Benin S.A. Ors., 2025 INSC 1342[4]. In this ruling, the hon’ble court held that Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator if the parties have agreed to a foreign seated arbitration, thereby reaffirming the territoriality principle.
There can also be scenarios where disputes though litigated or arbitrated abroad often leads up to enforcing judgements or awards against assets in India. On the other hand, Indian judgements may demand overseas enforcement. Hence, the most challenging phase of cross border disputes arises at the stage of enforcement. Under Section 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1966[5], Indian courts are free to refuse enforcement of a foreign award if it violates India’s public policy.
Sometimes, cross border disputes might also entail multi-jurisdictional proceedings which might lead to conflicting decisions as well as complexity. Collectively, all these cross-border issues reveal the legal complexity that permeates foreign linked disputes. Involvement of multiple jurisdictions complicates answers to questions concerning relevant court’s jurisdiction, governing law that shall decide the substantive rights of the parties, lawyers permitted to handle cases involving both foreign and Indian elements. Thus, it is important to first look into how jurisdiction issues are decided by the Indian courts.
Jurisdiction in Cross Border Disputes: Indian legal position
Determination of jurisdiction is the most basic and controversial issue in cross border disputes. In India, various factors and principles are considered to fix jurisdictional issues. Indian courts take into account following aspects:
- Place where the dispute arose
- Place of residence/business of the parties
- Place of performance of contract
Usually, contracts between parties mention the relevant jurisdiction as the forum for dispute resolution. Indian courts generally adhere to such clauses unless they violate Indian public policy. There can also be scenarios where laws of different countries clash, thereby complicating jurisdiction. In such cases, courts take the help of international treaties like Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements[6] to decide the appropriate forum. Sometimes, courts also take recourse to the doctrine of forum non conveniens as per which a court can refuse to hear a case if it finds another country’s court jurisdiction to be more appropriate. In Modi Entertainment Network vs WSG Cricket, (2003) 4 SCC 341[7], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that anti-suit injunctions can be granted by Indian courts to restrain parties from pursuing foreign litigation if the foreign case is unfair or oppressive, even when a contract mentions foreign court. The reasoning behind this is to prevent using foreign litigation as a tool to escape Indian jurisdiction when justice demands. Further, in the landmark case of Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012) 9 SCC 552[8], it was clarified that Part 1 of India’s Arbitration Act does not apply to foreign seated arbitrations. This meant that courts in India have very little powers to intervene in international arbitration conducted outside India. Hence, these cases depict that Indian courts strike a balance between party autonomy as well as public interest.
Foreign linked litigation in Indian courts
While arbitration plays a significant role in cross border dispute resolution, Indian courts also wield enormous power in foreign linked litigation, especially when parties approach the courts directly or court assistance is sought parallelly with foreign proceedings. Foreign linked litigation refers to the process of resolving disputes involving foreign parties, different governing laws, presenting challenges in jurisdiction, enforcement of judgements, conflicting laws and This often requires specific jurisdictional rules or international treaties to manage parallel proceedings.
In India, there is a system to recognise and enforce foreign judgements which is laid down under section 13-14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[9]. India follows a two-tier reciprocity-based enforcement system in the case of foreign judgements. According to this system, India enforces foreign judgements only from those countries, which it officially recognises as ‘reciprocating territories. However, this poses a challenge as only 13 countries are recognised for enforcing foreign judgements. This creates unpredictability for the foreign parties as judgments from non-reciprocating territories require new suits, while those from reciprocating territory gets simply enforced under Section 44A CPC, 1908.
Under Section 13 CPC,1908, a judgement made in foreign court can only be challenged under the following six circumstances, namely:
- Lack of foreign court’s jurisdiction
- Judgement not based on merits
- Misuse of international law
- Breach of natural justice
- Judgement obtained by fraud
- Violation of Indian law
While Section 14 CPC, 1908 presumes the competency of foreign courts but the exceptions cited above make the enforcement uncertain and time consuming.
Entry of foreign lawyers and new regulatory framework
In order to regulate cross-border legal practice and position India as a hub for international arbitration, the Bar council of India framed “Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022[10],” which were subsequently amended in May 2025. These rules intended to open up the Indian legal market to foreign lawyers and foreign law firms while also safeguarding the rights of Indian Advocates. As per Rule 3 of these BCI Rules, foreign lawyers and foreign law firms are not permitted to practice law in India unless they are registered with the Bar Council of India. This rule is also applicable for Indian Advocates or Indian law firms who wish to register themselves as foreign lawyers or law firms under these rules. However, foreign lawyers visiting India temporarily on a fly-in, fly-out basis are exempted from the above rules under strict conditions. Such strict conditions entail the following; limited scope of advice, no office or permanent presence in India, maximum length of stay in India to be of 60 days within any 12-month period. Additionally, these rules also permit foreign lawyers and foreign law firms to practice law in India in non-litigious matters such as drafting of contracts etc. Their practise is restricted to advisory and transactional work involving foreign law, international law and related legal advisory services. They are permitted to undertake corporate and transactional work such as contract drafting, mergers and acquisitions and due diligence, as long as they do not advise on Indian law or appear in Indian courts. Hence, Indian advocates enjoy exclusive domain in domestic legal proceedings. Further, Rule 9 of the BCI Rules also provide that Indian Advocates and other Indian legal professionals may also be engaged by foreign law firms and lawyers as consultants or employees, as long as they do not represent clients of the firm before a court or tribunal. The most significant provision of these rules relate to allowing the participation of foreign legal practitioners in international commercial arbitration in India involving foreign law or international law dispute.
What the new rules mean for international cases in India
The new regulatory framework allows foreign law firms to advise Indian clients on International legal issues, thereby providing integrated legal guidance to clients involved in cross-border disputes. These rules can provide a significant role in enhancing India’s attractiveness as a venue for resolving complicated cross border disputes. By allowing foreign lawyers in arbitration governed by international or foreign law, institutional arbitration in hubs like Delhi, Mumbai as well as the International Arbitration Centre in India can receive a major boost.
Significance of the new rules for Indian legal profession
The new regulatory framework seeks to strike a balance between international integration and safeguarding the interests of Indian legal practitioners by allowing Indian lawyers to access the foreign legal markets based on the principles of reciprocity. By enabling Indian Advocates and law firms to register as foreign lawyers or foreign law firms, the Indian counterparts can now extend their reach towards foreign law and international law consultancy without abandoning their rights to practice Indian laws before domestic courts. This dual registration enables Indian lawyers to widen their professional horizons while preserving their status as Indian Advocates.
The primary significance of these rules relates to developing India into a premier hub of International Arbitration which would ultimately help Indian Advocates and law firms by generating favourable opportunities for them.
Conclusion
While the 1991 reforms facilitated the entry of foreign capital, these new rules pave the way for the global legal expertise to safeguard that capital. It marks the inception of Legal LPG 2.0 by moving from a defensive stance to a more open market approach.
However, in order to make the transition smooth, strict regulatory vigilance would be required to ensure true reciprocity and maintenance of the exclusive domain of Indian Advocates in domestic litigation. However, by positioning Indian legal practice with global standards, the legal profession is set to transition into a major global player. As India pursues its journey towards becoming the world’s third largest economy, these rules confirms that the legal framework is not just an indicator of the growth, but an active catalyst for it.
Author: Namanveer Singh Sodhi, Senior Associate
Co- Author : Aishwarya Jha, Intern
- Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau
- BCA0018X62XCU81C4.pdf
- 27079_2018_5_1502_21165_Judgement_05-Mar-2020.pdf
- 34759_2023_7_1501_66083_Judgement_21-Nov-2025.pdf
- the_arbitration_and_conciliation_act,_1996_act_no._26_of_1996.pdf
- HCCH | #37 – Full text
- 18887.pdf
- Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical … on 6 September, 2012
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908)
- BCA0018X62XCU81C4.pdf
