Indian commercial litigation has undergone a structural transformation since the Commercial Courts Act 2015. Dedicated Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions in the High Courts now handle disputes above the specified value with timelines and case management procedures that make resolution within eighteen months to two years achievable — when the matter is properly presented from the outset. The tools available to commercial litigants — summary judgement under Order XIII-A, the injunction jurisdiction of the High Courts, Anton Piller orders for urgent evidence preservation, and Mareva injunctions for asset freezing — are powerful instruments that most litigants do not deploy because most litigants' lawyers do not use them habitually enough.
Goldschmidt Pallonji's Commercial Litigation practice is built around a single principle: every dispute has a strategy, and the strategy must be set on the first day. The interim reliefs available, the forum selection (arbitration versus civil court versus NCLT), the timing of institution, the evidence preservation steps, and the enforcement options available on success are all part of a litigation strategy that must be designed before the first pleading is filed. A dispute that drifts into litigation without a strategy produces years of proceedings and an uncertain outcome. A dispute that enters litigation with a clear strategy — the right forum, the right interim orders, the right timeline — produces a resolution.
For international disputes involving Indian parties — and for overseas parties involved in disputes with Indian counterparties — GP provides the cross-border litigation capability that the dispute requires. The enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India, the recognition of a foreign court judgment, the service of Indian proceedings on an overseas party, and the jurisdictional challenges that arise in cross-border disputes all require specific expertise that GP's corridor experience provides.
From the first injunction application through to enforcement of judgment — across Commercial Courts, High Courts, the NCLT, domestic arbitration, and international arbitration.
Breach of contract claims, recovery of money, enforcement of guarantees, and specific performance suits in the Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions of the High Courts. Summary judgement applications under Order XIII-A CPC where the defendant has no credible defence — the fastest route to a decree in the Commercial Court. Attachment before judgement where there is a risk of asset dissipation. Recovery of trade receivables — summary suit, arbitration, and the strategic use of insolvency proceedings as a collection tool where the debtor is a company of substance.
Learn More →Interim injunctions, ad interim injunctions, and urgent ex parte orders from the High Courts where immediate relief is required to prevent irreparable harm. Anton Piller orders for evidence preservation where there is a risk of document destruction. Mareva injunctions for asset freezing where there is a risk of asset dissipation before judgement. Non-compete and non-solicitation injunctions against departing employees. Trade mark and passing-off injunctions. John Doe orders for unknown infringers. GP has obtained injunctions in all major High Courts — Bombay, Delhi, Madras, Karnataka — including emergency ex parte orders at short notice.
Learn More →Domestic arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and its 2015, 2019, and 2021 amendments — ad hoc and institutional. International arbitration under SIAC, ICC, LCIA, and DIAC rules — as seat counsel, co-counsel, and as sole counsel where GP's international corridor expertise makes us the natural choice. Appointment of arbitrators, challenges to arbitrator appointment, interim measures from the Courts under Section 9, enforcement of domestic and foreign awards. Anti-arbitration injunctions where a foreign party attempts to commence proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause.
Learn More →Oppression and mismanagement petitions before the NCLT under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act — for minority shareholders whose rights are being systematically disregarded. Shareholder agreement enforcement — injunctions to prevent breach of reserved matters, enforcement of tag-along and drag-along provisions, dispute resolution under SHA arbitration clauses. Board disputes and deadlock resolution. Derivative actions by shareholders for wrongs done to the company. For joint venture disputes — the mechanics of deadlock resolution, put and call option exercise, and the valuation disputes that arise on a compulsory share transfer.
Learn More →Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India under the New York Convention — petitions before the appropriate High Court, defences to enforcement, and the public policy exception as applied by Indian courts. Recognition of foreign court judgments where the foreign court had jurisdiction over the Indian party. Cross-border service of Indian court proceedings on overseas defendants. Jurisdictional challenges where an Indian defendant contests the jurisdiction of an overseas tribunal. For Australian, Singaporean, GCC, and UK parties involved in disputes with Indian counterparties — GP provides the Indian law advice that their home jurisdiction advisers cannot.
Learn More →Contract review and redrafting to remove the ambiguities that generate disputes. Legal notices — the notice that puts the counterparty on the clearest possible legal footing and creates the paper trail that supports the subsequent proceedings. Without-prejudice settlement negotiations where the commercial outcome is achievable without litigation costs and delay. Pre-action forensic accounting and document preservation where litigation is anticipated and the evidence must be secured before proceedings commence. For businesses in ongoing commercial relationships where a dispute has arisen — structuring the resolution to preserve the relationship while protecting the client's legal position.
Learn More →India is a New York Convention signatory. A foreign arbitral award obtained in a Convention country — Singapore, Australia, the UK, the UAE — is enforceable in India through an enforcement petition to the appropriate High Court. The grounds on which an Indian court can refuse enforcement are limited — lack of valid arbitration agreement, lack of notice, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, award contrary to public policy, or non-arbitrability. Indian courts have narrowed the public policy exception significantly since the 2015 amendments, making enforcement substantially more predictable than it was previously. GP has enforced SIAC, ICC, and LCIA awards in Indian courts — from the petition through to the execution against Indian assets — and has also successfully resisted enforcement petitions where the award was obtained in breach of natural justice.
Not every commercial dispute is better resolved through arbitration. For debt recovery where the debtor has no real defence, the Commercial Court's summary judgement procedure may produce a decree faster than an arbitral award. For disputes where one party is manipulating the arbitral process — challenging the arbitrator, seeking repeated adjournments — the court may offer a more reliable timeline. For cross-border disputes where enforcement will ultimately be needed in a foreign jurisdiction, arbitration is almost always preferable because the New York Convention network is more reliable than foreign court judgment enforcement. GP advises on this choice before the dispute crystallises — because the dispute resolution clause in a new contract is one of the most consequential decisions the business will make.
Asset dissipation — a counterparty that learns it faces a large commercial claim and begins moving its Indian assets overseas, transferring property to family members, or creating encumbrances on its business — is one of the most commercially urgent situations a litigant can face. The remedy is an attachment before judgement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC or an injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act — obtained before the transfer is complete. Once the assets are gone, the judgment that follows is worth very little. GP has obtained Mareva-style injunctions on same-day applications in both the Bombay and Delhi High Courts — restraining defendants from dealing with their assets pending the resolution of the main dispute. The window for obtaining such an order is narrow. Do not wait for the asset transfer to complete before calling.
Every GP commercial litigation matter begins with a commercial strategy session — what is the client trying to achieve, what is the fastest legitimate path to that outcome, and is litigation the right instrument or are there faster and cheaper alternatives. For some disputes, an injunction application produces a settlement within weeks. For others, IBC proceedings produce payment in days. For others still, arbitration is the correct forum and court proceedings are the wrong choice. GP's litigation strategy advice begins before the first letter is sent — because the strategic choices made at the outset determine the entire trajectory of the dispute.
The most valuable asset in commercial litigation is institutional knowledge of the underlying transaction or relationship. The lawyer who drafted the contract, structured the investment, or advised on the regulatory compliance of the transaction understands the facts at a depth that no new litigation team can replicate from a file review. At GP, the transaction lawyer and the litigation lawyer are in the same building — and in most disputes, the same person who structured the deal argues the dispute that arose from it. The institutional memory of the transaction is the most powerful tool in the litigation.
In a cross-border commercial dispute — Indian party versus Australian company, Indian party versus GCC investor — the dispute almost always has a bilateral dimension that affects strategy: which forum has jurisdiction, whether a foreign award or judgment will be enforceable, which party has the stronger position under the applicable governing law, and whether the dispute resolution mechanism in the contract is actually enforceable in both jurisdictions. GP's corridor expertise means that in disputes involving our five corridors, we understand both sides of the bilateral dispute — allowing us to frame strategy that accounts for the overseas party's position, not just the Indian party's.
Complete confidentiality maintained.
Acted for an Indian technology services company in the recovery of Rs.34 crore of unpaid invoices from a large commercial client who had disputed the invoices on purported technical grounds. GP assessed the dispute as one in which the defendant's defences had no real prospect of success — the contractual deliverables had been accepted, the invoices had been partially paid in prior periods, and the dispute was raised only after a change in the client's management. GP filed in the Commercial Court under Order XIII-A (summary judgement) with a complete documentary record from day one. The Commercial Court granted summary judgement in 11 months — without trial — and the decree was satisfied in full within 90 days of the order.
Acted for a Singapore company in the enforcement of an SGD 4.2 million SIAC award against an Indian distributor who had terminated a distribution agreement in breach of its terms. The Indian respondent resisted enforcement on public policy grounds — arguing that the award's damages calculation was contrary to Indian public policy on contract damages. GP's enforcement petition demonstrated that the SIAC tribunal's damages approach was consistent with the Hadley v Baxendale principles applied in Indian courts, that the public policy exception was not available merely because the outcome was different from what an Indian tribunal might have ordered, and that the 2015 Arbitration Act amendments had narrowed the public policy exception to apply only to awards that shock the conscience of the court. The Bombay High Court enforced the award in full. The decree was executed against the respondent's Indian bank accounts within 60 days of the enforcement order.
Acted for a manufacturer whose distributor — upon being terminated for unpaid dues of Rs.18 crore — was discovered to be in the process of transferring its key assets to a newly incorporated entity owned by the distributor's family members. GP obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court within six hours of instruction, restraining the distributor and its directors from dealing with, transferring, or encumbering any assets pending the main dispute. With the injunction in place and the asset transfer halted, the distributor entered settlement negotiations within ten days. A consent settlement was reached within three weeks, with Rs.12 crore paid immediately and the balance secured by a charge over the distributor's immovable property.
The practice is led by a senior commercial litigator with appearance experience across the Bombay and Delhi Commercial Divisions, the NCLT, and domestic and international arbitrations. The team includes specialists in arbitration, shareholder disputes, and cross-border enforcement — with the forensic accounting support of GP's forensic practice for disputes where the financial analysis is as important as the legal argument. For cross-border disputes, the practice draws directly on GP's international corridor expertise to provide the bilateral strategic analysis that purely India-focused litigation firms cannot deliver.
The practice operates an emergency response capability — injunction applications on same-day notice, asset-freezing applications within hours of instruction, and Section 9 arbitration applications on an urgent basis. Clients who face time-critical commercial disputes are assigned a senior lawyer on first contact — not a paralegal or an associate.
Case management hearings, summary judgement under Order XIII-A, document disclosure, and the procedural steps that distinguish Commercial Court litigation from ordinary civil court proceedings — a practitioner's guide for businesses entering the Commercial Court for the first time.
Read Guide →How Indian courts have applied the public policy exception to foreign award enforcement since the 2015 Arbitration Act amendments — with an analysis of the cases that succeeded and the cases that failed, and what they mean for parties seeking to enforce SIAC, ICC, and LCIA awards in India.
Read Bulletin →Whether you need an emergency injunction, a contract dispute litigated in the Commercial Court, a foreign award enforced in India, or a shareholder dispute resolved — our team responds immediately for urgent matters and within 24 hours for all others.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy. All communications are strictly confidential.