PR No – 45
19th December 2025
New Delhi
New Delhi, December 19, 2025: The Law & Justice Committee of the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) successfully organised a Seminar on “Jurisdictional Conflicts in International Dispute Resolution”, bringing together leading jurists, senior advocates and in-house counsel to deliberate on evolving challenges relating to anti-suit injunctions.
In her Welcome Address, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Chair, Law & Justice Committee, PHDCCI, highlighted the Committee’s sustained efforts to support industry through knowledge dissemination, policy engagement and capacity-building initiatives across regulatory law, labour law and dispute resolution. She noted that the Committee regularly undertakes programmes and publishes resources aimed at providing practical guidance to stakeholders, while also fostering meaningful academic and jurisprudential discussions.
She observed that with the rapid expansion of cross-border trade, foreign investments, joint ventures and participation in international tenders, disputes increasingly span multiple jurisdictions. One of the most fundamental challenges in such matters—whether civil, commercial, insolvency-related or arbitration—remains the identification of the appropriate jurisdiction. Referring to the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India and international courts, she noted that considerable clarity has emerged over time on issues such as arbitral seat and venue, exclusive jurisdiction and appellate forums. Welcoming Mr. Richard Clayton KC (UK) as Guest of Honour, she noted that his address would provide a global perspective on anti-suit injunctions, followed by insights from senior advocates and in-house counsel.
Mr. Richard Clayton KC, King’s Counsel, Burnell Chambers, set the stage by delivering a comprehensive overview of anti-suit injunctions, explaining their origins, purpose and growing relevance in cross-border commercial disputes. He emphasised that anti-suit injunctions operate against parties rather than foreign courts, while still engaging the principle of international comity. Tracing the evolution of the doctrine in English law, he explained how it developed into a discretionary and principled remedy applied on a case-by-case basis.
A key focus of his address was the UK Supreme Court’s decision in UniCredit v. RusChem Alliance, which he described as strongly pro-arbitration and pro-contract. While acknowledging its commercial rationale, he also highlighted the controversy surrounding issues of jurisdictional reach and enforceability, particularly in light of subsequent actions by foreign courts. He expressed a preference for the common law approach over rigid legislative codification, citing its flexibility and emphasis on justice in individual cases.
The Seminar was formally opened by Dr. Jatinder Singh, Deputy Secretary General, PHDCCI, who highlighted the growing complexity of dispute resolution in an increasingly globalised world. He noted that as commerce, investment and innovation transcend national boundaries, questions concerning the appropriate forum for adjudicating disputes have become more complex. Modern commercial contracts, he observed, often involve multiple jurisdictions, differing governing laws and competing claims of authority, each operating within its own procedural and regulatory framework. He emphasised that addressing jurisdictional conflicts is not merely a legal necessity, but also an opportunity to promote procedural innovation and effective dispute management in cross-border engagements.
During the panel discussion on “Jurisdictional Conflicts in International Dispute Resolution – Anti-suit Injunctions & Cross-forum Appeals and their Interplay”, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, described recent judicial interference in foreign-seated arbitrations as fact-specific aberrations rather than a systemic shift. He emphasised that Indian courts consistently maintain that intervention must be rare, exceptional and guided by the interests of justice, reinforcing that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, drew a clear distinction between anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions, describing the latter as an “exception within an exception.” He emphasised that courts exercise heightened restraint in interfering with arbitral proceedings, guided by the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, and that only narrow statutory windows justify such intervention.
Offering a comparative perspective, Mr. Nakul Dewan KC, Twenty Essex (England & Wales), and Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, noted that both Indian and English courts broadly align in upholding party autonomy and arbitration agreements. Referring to Modi Entertainment Network and Unicredit, he observed that deviations are rare, fact-specific and do not signal a departure from settled principles.
From an industry standpoint, Mr. Somashis Mohapatra, Head of Litigation, JSW Steel, shared the in-house counsel’s approach to managing jurisdictional conflicts. He explained that corporate strategy is driven by contractual position, factual context and strategic advantage, and cited instances involving anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions where carefully calibrated legal action led to favourable outcomes.
The panel discussion was co-moderated by Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, and Member, Law & Justice Committee, PHDCCI, along with Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran. Through incisive and well-structured moderation, Ms. Deshmukh facilitated focused deliberations and posed pertinent questions that enabled the panellists to address complex jurisdictional issues with clarity, significantly enriching participants’ understanding of the subject.
The event has been attended by more than 60 delegates. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys were the knowledge partner.
*END*
Warm Regards,
Media Division
PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry