INTRODUCTION

In today’s knowledge-driven economy, intellectual property (IP) has become one of the most valuable business assets. Brands, inventions, creative works, and proprietary technologies define market leadership and competitive advantage across industries. As companies expand internationally, they encounter not only growth opportunities but also heightened risks of infringement, counterfeiting, piracy, and unauthorized use. This makes IP protection a central component of global business strategy.

One of the most significant hubs for trade and logistics in the world, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is situated at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The United Arab Emirates serves as a gateway for commodities entering and departing international markets thanks to facilities like Dubai International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, and Jebel Ali Port, the biggest container port in the Middle East. However, this critical significance also poses risks because the region is frequently the route of parallel imports, counterfeit goods, and other IP infringement.

Recognizing these challenges, the UAE has overhauled its IP framework in recent years, aligning its laws more closely with global standards and strengthening enforcement mechanisms. The adoption of new laws in 2021 on trademarks, industrial property rights, and copyrights, together with its accession to the Madrid Protocol, marks a significant leap forward.

These reforms create both opportunities and responsibilities for businesses. Companies can now leverage streamlined international filing systems, enhanced enforcement, and sophisticated dispute resolution forums such as the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC).

This article explores how companies can strengthen cross-border IP protection in the UAE under the evolving legal landscape. It examines the legal framework, international treaties, enforcement mechanisms, contractual considerations, and practical steps for businesses seeking resilient protection of their IP assets.

MAPPING THE UAE IP FRAMEWORK

The UAE’s modern IP framework rests on a series of legislative reforms passed in 2021:

• Trademarks: Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 aligns national practice with international standards, introduces recognition of non-traditional marks (such as 3D shapes, sounds, and holograms), and strengthens enforcement powers.
• Patents, Utility Models, and Industrial Designs: Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 brings patent and design law into harmony with the TRIPS Agreement and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
• Copyright: Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2021 enhances protection for authors, performers, and producers, including in the digital environment.

Equally significant is the UAE’s involvement in treaties. By joining the Madrid System for worldwide trademark registration, companies can protect their brands in several jurisdictions with a single application. The UAE has not yet ratified the Hague Agreement on industrial designs, but the government has indicated that it is amenable to additional integration into international intellectual property systems. Companies can use WIPO Lex to monitor developments.

Leveraging Madrid for Trademarks

Businesses joining the market from overseas or growing outside of the United Arab Emirates might benefit greatly from the Madrid Protocol. An international registration naming additional member countries may be based on a trademark filed in the United Arab Emirates. International businesses can also include the UAE in a larger portfolio strategy.

That said, the UAE’s implementation of the Madrid Protocol comes with specific nuances. The country has opted for an 18-month examination period, meaning that companies may wait longer for confirmation of protection compared to some jurisdictions. To mitigate risks, businesses with mission-critical marks should consider filing parallel national applications directly with the UAE Ministry of Economy alongside Madrid filings. WIPO’s official notice further enumerates the details of the applications.

Protecting Patents and Designs

Patent protection in the UAE is available through both direct national filings and the PCT route. Applicants entering the UAE national phase must ensure their inventions meet novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability standards under Law No. 11 of 2021.

Businesses are more constrained when it comes to industrial designs. Design protection needs to be obtained locally because the UAE is not currently a part of the Hague System. To promote harmonization and enforceability, businesses with robust design portfolios should keep their Locarno classifications the same across jurisdictions.

Customs and Anti-Counterfeiting Strategies

As a major logistics hub, the UAE is particularly exposed to counterfeit trade. Customs authorities play a critical role in border enforcement. Companies can record their trademarks with the Dubai Customs IPR Department, which monitors shipments and can seize infringing goods.

To maximize effectiveness, businesses should:

• Provide customs officials with detailed product identification manuals.
• Incorporate security features (QR codes, holograms, RFID) to differentiate genuine products.
• Coordinate closely with local distributors to trace and intercept grey-market goods.

The Brand Recording system provides a streamlined mechanism for IP rights holders to secure customs support.

Litigation, Arbitration, and the DIFC Advantage

IP disputes in the UAE may be handled in onshore courts, but the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) offers a unique advantage. Established as a common law jurisdiction, the DIFC has its own Intellectual Property Law No. 4 of 2019, which mirrors international standards and provides specialized remedies.

For cross-border businesses, the DIFC’s legal system is particularly attractive because:

• Judgments and arbitral awards are widely enforceable under the New York Convention.
• Parties can agree to DIFC jurisdiction in their contracts.
• The DIFC courts are generally more efficient and internationally oriented compared to some onshore proceedings.

Contractual Safeguards

Strong contracts remain the backbone of an effective IP strategy. Key considerations include:

• Employment and Contractor Agreements: Must clearly assign ownership of IP created during the course of work. Given the UAE’s recognition of moral rights, contracts should also address authorship and attribution.
• Licensing Agreements: Should define the scope of use, set clear boundaries on territorial rights, and include audit rights to monitor compliance.
• Confidentiality Agreements: Must align with UAE trade secret law and, for DIFC-based entities, the Commissioner of Intellectual Property’s guidelines.

Operational Integration

Legal rights alone are insufficient without robust operational integration. Businesses should adopt proactive enforcement and monitoring systems:

• Digital Monitoring: Track e-commerce platforms and social media for counterfeit listings. The UAE Ministry of Economy’s IP portal enables rights holders to file complaints online.
• Portfolio Audits: Ensure coverage of Arabic versions and transliterations of trademarks, as these are often exploited by infringers.
• Supply Chain Management: Implement serialization, product tracking, and distributor training to identify potential leaks.

Preparing for the Future

The UAE continues to invest in building a regional IP ecosystem. Initiatives such as Dubai’s plan to establish a dedicated IP hub demonstrate the government’s commitment to innovation-driven economic growth, making investors trust more in the government’s motives. Businesses should monitor:

• Potential UAE accession to the Hague System for designs.
• Expanding digital services for IP filings and enforcement.
• Integration of AI-driven tools for customs inspections and online brand protection.

Conclusion

The UAE’s goal to become a global center for trade, innovation, and technology is reflected in its changing intellectual property landscape. This gives businesses a setting full of opportunity, but it also presents difficulties that call for careful planning.

In the UAE, a strong cross-border IP protection plan should include:

1. Timely filings under modernized UAE IP laws.
2. Strategic use of international systems such as Madrid for trademarks.
3. Customs records and anti-counterfeiting measures tailored to the UAE’s trade role.
4. Strong contracts and dispute resolution mechanisms, including leveraging DIFC’s common-law framework.
5. Operational vigilance in monitoring online and offline markets.

By integrating legal, contractual, and operational safeguards, businesses can protect their innovations and brands while capitalizing on the UAE’s position as a global trade and innovation hub. In doing so, they not only shield themselves from risks but also align with the UAE’s vision of building a resilient, knowledge-based economy for the future

• Sanjay H. Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Rishiraj Nalte is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

The arbitration landscape in India is set to change with the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, (Draft Amendment), to modernise the dispute resolution mechanism while embedding the institutional arbitration mechanism into the Indian Legal Framework. This Amendment is a step towards making India an International Hub for Arbitration, aiming to promote ease of doing business by providing a boost to institutional arbitration without judicial intervention and the timely conclusion of arbitration proceedings. Though the arbitration regime has seen various significant changes in 2015, 2019, and 2021, the draft amendment will bring major changes to the arbitration law in India. The Draft amendment is a result of the recommendations issued by the Expert Committee led by Dr. T.K. Vishwanathan, and the Bill has not yet been passed, as the public consultation is underway.

Key Changes

• Promoting Institutional Arbitration
  The draft bill defines an “arbitral institution” as “a body or organisation that provides for the conduct of arbitration proceedings under its aegis, by an arbitral tribunal as per its own rules of procedure or as otherwise agreed by the parties.” This definition is preferable to the approach adopted in the 2019 amendments, which required an institution to be designated by the Supreme Court of India or a High Court for it to be considered an “arbitral institution.”
  
  The Bill also enhanced the powers of arbitral institutions. The arbitral institutions are proposed to have the power to extend the time limit to issue an award, to order a reduction of arbitrator’s fees where the delay is from the arbitral tribunal, and to substitute arbitrators. (Section 29-A)

• Introduction of Time Limits
  For promoting efficiency, the 2024 Bill introduced time limits for certain applications. For an application under Section 8, the Bill proposes a time limit of 60 days for disposing of the application. A 30-day limit has been proposed to the arbitral tribunal to dispose of the jurisdictional objections as preliminary issues. Further, it seeks the tribunal to record reasons in writing for deferring a ruling on the jurisdictional objections. Under section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, a 60-day time limit for appeal is proposed by the Bill.

• Interim Measures
  The Indian Courts are empowered under the Arbitration Act to grant interim measures for all Indian-seated arbitrations and certain foreign-seated arbitrations. The 2015 amendment to the Act introduced certain limitations on the court’s power to grant interim relief once an arbitral tribunal has been constituted. The Bill proposes to restrict the parties’ rights to approach the court for interim relief once the arbitration proceedings have commenced, to encourage them to seek interim relief from the arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Act. The 2024 Bill also proposes certain limits on the court’s power to grant interim relief before the commencement of arbitration or after the award is rendered.
  
  Under Section 9(2) of the Act, a time limit of 90 days is provided to commence arbitration proceedings from the date on which the pre-arbitral interim measure order is passed by the Court. The Bill proposes that the 90-day time limit would start from the date of filing of the application for an interim measure. The 2024 Bill also proposes to introduce section 9-A in the Arbitration Act, allowing parties to apply for interim measures from an emergency arbitrator after the arbitral proceedings commence but before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.

• Appellate tribunal
  The 2024 amendment aims to reduce court intervention in arbitration proceedings. The Bill proposes an appellate tribunal under Section 34-A of the Act, wherein the ‘Appellate Arbitral Tribunal’ can entertain applications for setting aside an arbitral award decided exclusively by an Indian Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

• Omission of ‘Conciliation’
  In 2023, the Mediation Act came into force in India, which also deals with Conciliation. The 2024 Bill proposes to omit any references to ‘conciliation’ in the Arbitration Act.

• Emergency Arbitrator
  The 2024 Bill aims to insert section 2(ea), defining ‘emergency arbitrator’ as an arbitrator appointed under section 9A. The Bill recognises the legal decision in the case of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors., wherein the emergency arbitrator’s award was recognised and considered enforceable under section 17(1) of the Act. The Bill aims to align with international practices and includes provisions for the appointment of emergency arbitrators. Though detailed provisions are not provided in the Bill, the statutory recognition of the emergency arbitrators is a welcome change, where ad hoc arbitrations remain a common practice.

• Determination of arbitration fees
  The Draft amendment proposes to delete the model schedule of fees (Schedule IV) and the related provisions. It proposes to give the ad hoc arbitrators the power to determine the fees where the parties have not decided the fees, with the Arbitration Council of India. However, there is a lack of clarity on the fees as the Bill does not provide any criteria or factors to determine the arbitration fees.  

• Place of Arbitration
  The Bill seeks to address the ambiguous and litigated issue of the distinction between “seat” and “venue” of arbitration. The Supreme Court has addressed the same issues in various cases, including BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. and BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. The 2024 amendment proposes to replace the term “place” with “seat” throughout the act and clarifies that the seat of arbitration is the legal jurisdiction where the arbitration proceedings are commenced.

The Bill under Section 2-A clarifies the definition of court and the seat of arbitration. Section 2-A(1) clarifies that in arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the courts will have jurisdiction based on the seat of arbitration as agreed by the parties or determined by the tribunal. Under section 2-A(2), in international commercial arbitration, the high court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration will have jurisdiction.

Further, under Section 20, two options are with the parties for the seat of arbitration:

“(a) Option 1 allows the parties to agree on a seat of arbitration, or for the Tribunal to determine the seat in case of no agreement between the parties.

(b) Option 2 provides that if no seat is agreed upon or determined, the seat will be the place where the contract was executed, or the cause of action arose.”

Challenges

Despite the promising reforms in the arbitration regime in India, challenges persist. The non-intervention of the judiciary with an increased role of arbitral institutions and tribunals might impact the cost of arbitration. The Arbitration Council of India is yet to be constituted, raising questions of operational readiness. Further, the Bill does not address the appeal process for ad hoc arbitration nor fee structures, highlighting risks of procedural gaps.

Conclusion

The 2024 amendment is a significant leap in the institutional arbitration mechanisms within the Indian dispute resolution mechanism. With expedited proceedings, limited court intervention, an emergency arbitrator, and embracing digital technology, India is aligning the arbitration framework with the international standard and is supporting its aim to be a global arbitration hub.

The markets are evolving with the way they want to resolve issues and disputes, Dubai has marked itself as a landmark and desirable place to carry out business activities, both domestic and international. This cross-border growth has matured into legal complexities that can no longer be resolved with traditional litigation practices.

Over the past few years, arbitration, especially under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has been on a steady rise. But the question that arises in a reader’s mind is, will it actually be replacing litigation for good in real estate disputes?

The short answer is that arbitration is becoming more popular in high-value, complex real estate situations, even while litigation is still frequently employed in tenant-landlord disputes and some regulatory concerns.

Two developments catalysed Dubai’s arbitration ecosystem:

1. By eliminating the DIFC-LCIA and consolidating arbitrations into DIAC, Decree No. 34 of 2021 maintained the legality of the DIFC-LCIA provisions while replacing DIAC as the administering body (unless the parties agree differently). This prevented clause paralysis and gave users a sense of continuity.
2. In March 2022, DIAC launched its new Arbitration Rules, modernizing case management with features like expedited proceedings, consolidation, joinder, virtual hearings, and emergency arbitrators. These match international practices and improved Dubai’s attractiveness for complex commercial disputes, including real estate and construction claims.

The numbers back up the shift. DIAC’s 2023 Annual Report shows cases rose year-on-year. Crucially, construction and real-estate disputes were the most prevalent—nearly 60%, indicating deep penetration in the sector.

The stability of arbitration has also been reaffirmed by courts since Decree 34. UAE rulings have upheld the enforceability of DIFC-LCIA provisions, interpreting them to function through DIAC. For legacy contracts, this “arbitration-friendly” approach lowers execution risk.

The statutory backbone: a mature federal arbitration law

At the legislative level, the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018), aligned with UNCITRAL principles, supplies a comprehensive framework for agreements, tribunal powers, interim measures, award recognition/annulment, and support of the courts.

Clear processes for confirmation and limited annulment review now support arbitration clauses designed under UAE law, which is crucial when assets and projects are headquartered in Dubai, which has resulted in the interest for real-estate deals.

Where arbitration is taking over and why?

• Development JVs, SPAs, and EPC/fit-out contracts.
  Large-ticket development agreements (joint ventures, land sale and share purchase agreements with complex earn-outs), contractor/subcontractor disputes, and consultant appointments increasingly default to arbitration.

Reasons include:

• Tribunal expertise in construction delay/defect claims and valuation methodology.
• Procedural flexibility (tailored timetables, document production protocols).
• Confidentiality, minimizing market shock for listed developers or funds.
• Neutrality for cross-border counterparties; seat and law choices (e.g., onshore UAE or DIFC seat).
• Emergency/interim relief under DIAC Rules where timing is mission critical.

• Cross-border investment structures.
  Where SPVs own Dubai assets but investors are offshore, arbitration allows for award portability and coordinated multi-party disputes (via consolidation/joinder). Coupled with the UAE courts’ increasingly pro-arbitration approach to clause interpretation and enforcement, the execution risk profile is more acceptable to international capital.

• Legacy DIFC-LCIA contracts.
  Having DIAC take over to oversee proceedings, parties having previous DIFC-LCIA terms can move forward without rewriting after Decree 34. This continuity aids in maintaining the functionality of previous development and construction contract portfolios.

Where is litigation still prevalent?

1) Landlord–tenant disputes (e.g., rent increases, eviction, deposit recovery) are primarily channelled to Dubai’s specialist Rental Disputes Center (RDC) under the Dubai Land Department. The RDC encompasses properties throughout the Emirate and its free zones and offers a hybrid, judicially supervised forum with conciliation and fast-track procedures designed for the rental sector. RDC continues to be the default and not arbitration for daily real estate activities.

2) Regulatory or statutory issues.
Certain regulatory decisions (such as certain planning/registration difficulties) or matters involving public-law powers may not be arbitrable or may be better suited for judicial review. To prevent dead-end clauses, parties should map arbitrability during the contract-drafting process. Carve-outs of public policy are preserved by the Federal Arbitration Law.

3) Straightforward debt/execution cases.
Parties may prefer litigation for speed if the dispute is a straightforward, unpaid invoice with a local court judgment already in place or if precautionary attachment is required before proceedings begin. (However, under DIAC Rules, this gap can be closed by well-worded arbitration provisions and emergency procedures.)

4) Name DIAC and the Rules expressly.
To avoid institutional ambiguity (especially in legacy templates that still mention DIFC-LCIA), update clauses to “DIAC Arbitration under the DIAC Rules (2022)” and specify seat, number of arbitrators, and language. Courts have been pragmatic with old clauses, but clarity saves satellite fights.

5) Design for multi-party, multi-contract scenarios.
Developers, primary contractors, subcontractors, designers, O&M suppliers, and lenders are all involved in real estate projects. To prevent “arbitration islands,” employ joinder and consolidation wording that complies with DIAC’s standards and aligns conflict clauses throughout the contract suite.

6) Keep interim relief and evidence in mind.
Enable emergency arbitrator recourse and court-supportive interim measures in the seat. Coordinate with contract provisions on site access for experts, defect testing, and document retention to make the arbitration efficient.

Is arbitration “replacing” litigation?

In high-value, complex disputes, especially construction defects, delay claims, JV fall-outs, and M&A-linked real estate deals, arbitration is already the default—the 2023 DIAC data is compelling proof, with construction/real estate forming the majority of cases. The consolidation of institutions under DIAC, modern rules, and a judiciary that respects arbitration agreements (including those naming the defunct DIFC-LCIA) all point to a durable trajectory.

However, litigation isn’t going away:

• The RDC remains the workhorse for landlord–tenant disputes in Dubai—fast, specialized, and embedded in the rental ecosystem.
• Certain public-law or registrational issues will continue to flow to courts due to arbitrability limits.

The actual situation is one of functional specialization: litigation/RDC for tenancy and regulatory issues and arbitration for intricate commercial real estate disputes. That division is probably going to continue.

Emerging trends to watch

1) Arbitration-friendly jurisprudence.
Recent court decisions describe a “prevailing norm” toward enforcing arbitration clauses, reducing procedural brinkmanship over clause validity and institutional transitions, expect fewer derailments and more focus on the merits.

2) Greater case management.
DIAC’s embrace of virtual hearings, expedited procedures, and emergency arbitrator relief should keep cycle times competitive with fast-track litigation, particularly where tribunals push active timetabling.

3) Cross-border enforcement literacy.
Parties will become more knowledgeable about asset mapping and award recognition tactics as more foreign capital invests in Dubai real estate, taking advantage of the Federal Arbitration Law’s confirmation procedure.

Bottom line and conclusion

In Dubai real estate, arbitration has not completely replaced litigation; nonetheless, it is currently the most popular forum for issues that are most important to developers and investors, such as contractor claims, defects, valuation, and JV breakdowns. Expect arbitration’s share to continue growing due to the current DIAC rules, increasing construction and real estate caseloads, and supportive court practice; litigation, through the RDC and the courts, is still essential for tenancy and public-law matters. Designing your dispute architecture according to risk profile, utilizing both systems where they are most effective, is a wiser course of action than making a permanent decision.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• RishiRaj Nalte is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

Introduction

In the globalised world of commerce and trade, it is common to have companies conduct business through a group of companies. A group under this context means two or more enterprises, which directly or indirectly exercise 26% or more voting rights, or appoint more than 50% members of the Boards of directors in the other enterprise, or control the management or affairs of the corporate entity. Groups are a set of entities related to each other by economic dependencies or shared control of entities that carry on business with common objectives. This conduct of interconnected entities raises complex legal challenges when insolvency occurs, not only in respect to the asset distribution but also with respect to the dispute resolution mechanism, including arbitration.

Group Insolvency Under IBC

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, deals with the insolvency proceedings of a corporate entity, with the purpose to keeping the distressed entity alive and maximising the value of assets of such entity for the benefit of all the stakeholders. IBC does not explicitly provide for ‘group insolvency’, however, the courts have taken the mechanism of substantive consolidation to bridge the gap. In cases such as Videocon, Era Infrastructure, Amtek, Lanco, Educomp, and Aircel, the courts and tribunals have made efforts to address the issues in group insolvency by allowing assets and liabilities of the group companies to be pooled for Insolvency proceedings.

The need for a framework on group insolvency was recognised, resulting in the constitution of a Working Group on Group Insolvency (WG) and Cross-border Insolvency Rule/Regulation Committee, aimed to facilitate a framework for group insolvency and to analyse the UNCITRAL model law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. Both the Working Group and the Committee have given recommendations for Group insolvency Procedures under IBC. However, these recommendations are not yet incorporated under the Code, and the Group Insolvency is still under the judicial discretion.

IBC and Arbitration

Under the Code, once a resolution plan is approved, any claims, including the arbitration claims, are exhausted. Under section 14, the Code imposes a Moratorium in which a stay is imposed on the institution or continuation of proceedings, including arbitration, against the Corporate Debtor (CD). Therefore, precedence is given to insolvency proceedings over arbitration, as the insolvency proceedings are considered to be in rem, affecting all the stakeholders and not only the parties.

Nevertheless, arbitration in insolvency is allowed in limited circumstances. In cases where the arbitration is beneficial to the CD or the proceedings are by the CD, then the arbitration is allowed. If the claims do not involve the payment by the CD or deplete the debtor’s assets, then the tribunal or court can allow arbitration proceedings. However, this discretion is applied in limited circumstances, as IBC overrides other laws, including arbitration.

Group Insolvency and Arbitration

As Indian Insolvency law does not provide for group insolvency explicitly, the tribunals have occasionally used substantive consolidation or joint CRIP. This consolidation provides centralized control with a single committee of Creditors (CoC) and Resolution Professional (RP), and a unified process for maximization of the value of assets. Once the CRIP is admitted, section 14 of the Code imposes a moratorium staying suits and proceedings against the CD, including arbitration. The Supreme Court has affirmed that arbitration proceedings cannot be continued or commenced against the debtor during the moratorium. This provision of moratorium will also apply the multi-party, cross-entity arbitrations in group insolvency.

Under the Group of Companies (GoC) doctrine, as affirmed in the case of Cox & Kings v. SAP India, the non-signatory companies within a group are to be bound by the arbitration agreement signed by a signatory company. This doctrine is based on mutual intent, consent, and participation in the transaction and not mere corporate affiliation. However, if the affiliate is under the moratorium under IBC, the stay continues over the arbitral proceeding.

Nevertheless, it is a settled principle in law that questions involving insolvency are not arbitrable if they are the core of the dispute. NCLT is the appropriate forum to decide IBC exclusive issues such as adjudication of default, admission of CIRP, distribution of assets, and others. However, the issues not related to the insolvency proceedings can be arbitrable.

The group insolvency under IBC may delay or limit the cross-entity arbitration clauses. In a consolidated or parallel group CIRP under IBC, Section 14 of the Code will stay the arbitration proceedings against each debtor in CIRP, even if a GoC-based or cross-entity clause would otherwise apply to them. Arbitration between non-solvent affiliated and third parties may still continue. If the dispute is contractual and is in pre-admission, arbitration can be allowed. The same has been held in Indus Biotech v. Kotak, wherein the court clarified that a section 7 application, which is not yet admitted, may be referred to arbitration. However, once admitted moratorium limits the arbitration proceedings. So, the timing is vital for cross-entity disputes in group insolvency.

The enforceability of cross-entity arbitration clauses is a challenge in group insolvency under IBC, where priority is given to the creditor interests by the statutory moratorium, overriding arbitration clauses. Thus, while the GoC doctrine expands the scope of arbitration within corporate groups, the admission of group insolvency narrows its enforceability.

Conclusion

The enforceability of cross-entity arbitration clauses is a challenge in group insolvency where several companies of a conglomerate are involved. While the tribunals may consider the functional connections and consent, the enforcement of the arbitration clauses is often stayed by the moratorium under the IBC. This is a critical issue due to IBC prioritisation of creditors’ interests over the contractual obligations. Therefore, drafting group arbitration clauses with explicit terms or risk of insolvency is crucial. In essence, in India, contractual freedom is overridden by creditor protection under IBC, making arbitration clauses vulnerable in group insolvency.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Kandukuri Lakshmi Priya is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is an increasingly attractive destination for Indian brands seeking regional expansion and also seeking global expansion, this is due to its extremely attractive location including, strategic markets, robust business ecosystem and investor-friendly environment, making it desirable for any organisation to set up offices here. However, to be able to enter into the market and successfully execute business strategies, a proper understanding of the UAE’s evolving trademark regime is extremely important as to maintain ethical business practices and avoid conflicts with trademark infringement accusations. This blog demystifies the key features of the Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 on Trademarks, highlights recent procedural updates, and offers critical insights Indian businesses should grasp before filing their marks.

1. UAE Trademark Law 2021: A Modern, Inclusive Framework

Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 came into force on January 2, 2022, and replaced the previous 1992 statute and ushered in one of the most sweeping reforms in UAE trademark law in decades.

Expanded Definition of Trademark

Under the act in Article 2, the UAE has now recognized an inclusive range of marks which encompasses sound, scent, hologram, single-colour, 3D, and geographical indications, this act reflects the global best practices in IP jurisprudence.

New Rights and Protections :

Key benefits introduced under the new law include:

• Provisional actions to confiscate evidence and infringing items are examples of enhanced enforcement alternatives.
• provisions to contest registrations made in bad faith and stronger protection for well-known trademarks.
• simplified administrative procedures, such as the requirement to only publish in the official gazette rather than several newspapers.

2. The Basics: Registration Process & Authority

Indian brands should acquaint themselves with the following:

• The Ministry of Economy (MoE)—specifically, its Trademark Office (TMO)—administers all trademark matters, including filing, examination, renewals, assignments, and oppositions.
• A single-application system via the MOE’s online portal covers initial searches, filings, and responses.
• Registration entails:
  1. Filing the application (30–90 days for formal examination).
  2. Publication in the Official Gazette.
  3. A 30-day opposition period for third parties.
  4. Issuance of the registration certificate—valid for 10 years, renewable indefinitely.

Fees & Costs

Without accounting for lawyer or agency fees, the average government charge for registering a single trademark in a single class is around USD 1,950.

3. Key Features Indian Brands Must Note

Territorial Nature of Trademarks

The UAE operates like most other jurisdictions on a territorial basis. Indian registrations do not automatically extend to the UAE; brands must file separately (either directly via the MoE or via the Madrid System).

Grace Period for Power of Attorney (POA)

While a notarized and legalized Power of Attorney is required for trademark applications, according to an internal circular, the TMO now permits a 90-day grace period after filing for submitting the POA. Recent changes, however, suggest that applications that do not submit their POAs on time may potentially be rejected outright with no chance for appeal.

Indian brands are recommended to prepare legal documents (notarization, legalization, attestation) well in advance to ensure compliance within this narrow window.

Amendments After Registration

Under Article 19, trademark owners may request modification of goods/services or trademark details, provided such changes don’t “fundamentally alter” the mark’s essential character. These changes are subject to TMO approval.

Non-use & Revocation Risks

The registered trademark may be revoked upon request if it is not used for five consecutive years without a good reason.

4. Enforcement & Compliance Essentials

Enforcement Tools & Penalties

• Rights holders can pursue civil, criminal, and administrative remedies, including lawsuits, fines (potentially up to AED 1 million), imprisonment, and seizure of goods.
• Local economic departments and the MOE have the authority to enforce against violations. Border control registration also makes it possible for customs to seize counterfeit items.
• Revoked or invalid marks may be appealed administratively and through subsequent courts if necessary.

Recent Surge in Trademark Activity

In the first quarter ( Q1 ) of 2024, the Ministry of Economy recorded a 64% increase in new trademark filings—4,610 new registrations compared to 2,813 during the same period in 2023. These underscores growing investor trust and the strategic value Indian brands are placing on IP protection in the UAE.

5. Recommended Strategic Steps for Indian Brands

• • Assess regional IP strategy
    • Identify whether to approach UAE filings directly or via the Madrid Protocol, depending on scale, budget, and timeline.
  • Prepare documentation early
    • Ensure POA and supporting documents (e.g., priority certificates, commercial license) are ready for timely submission within the 90-day grace period.
  • Conduct preliminary trademark searches
    • Mitigate rejection risks by identifying conflicting marks early—even though searches are optional, they’re highly recommended.
  • Draft precise class descriptions
    • Make use of the Nice Classification system, but refrain from making generalizations that can cause problems or restrict future changes.
  • Maintain active use and monitor for infringement
    • By maintaining a continuous business presence, you can prevent non-use revocation; to enable border-level protection, register with Customs.
  • Plan renewal and admin updates proactively
    • Set reminders ahead of the 10-year renewal and monitor for modifications or licensing needs.

6. Conclusion

For Indian brands seeking to make their mark in the UAE, robust trademark protection is not optional—it’s essential. The Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 offers a modern, enforcement-oriented framework that aligns with global IP best practices.

From the expanded scope of protectable marks (including holograms, sounds, and scents) to the streamlined procedures and strong enforcement mechanisms, the UAE’s IP landscape is both accessible and formidable. Indian companies must navigate these waters with caution—but with careful planning, these new rules offer powerful tools to safeguard brand equity in one of the world’s most dynamic markets.

The traditional idea of dispute resolution between the creditor and corporate debtor (CD) has changed, and the parties have started preferring arbitration in insolvency matters. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), governing the insolvency matters, has reasonably limited the scope of arbitration. As Arbitration gained prominence in insolvency matters, the interface of arbitration and insolvency laws has created grey areas in procedure and practice, sparking debate over the arbitration proceedings in post-insolvency disputes. In commercial disputes, arbitration post-insolvency is a complex area. However, the recent judicial developments and the evolving commercial strategies emphasise the requirement of a nuanced approach to balance party autonomy in arbitration and the centralised collective resolution under IBC.

The Current Legal Framework

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, protects the interest of all the stakeholders involved in the CRIP process and protects the assets and interests of the CD. The Code intends to reduce distressed assets and provide for the maximisation of the value of assets of the Corporate Debtor. Under IBC, a strict statutory moratorium is introduced upon the admission of a Corporate Insolvency Process (CRIP). Under section 14 of the IBC, any legal proceeding is barred from initiation or continuation, including arbitration, against the CD. Even after the moratorium is lifted, the extinguished claims will not be revived. So, any claim of arbitration pre-existing the CRIP process will be extinguished, and the arbitral award granted against the debtor is invalid and unenforceable.

The Supreme Court in Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hotel Gaudavan (P) Ltd has clearly held that “the arbitration that has been instituted after the moratorium is non est.” When the arbitration proceedings are instituted after the declaration of moratorium, the continuation of proceedings would depend on two aspects;

1. Whether the claims are for the value maximisation of the assets of the CD, or
2. The nature of the debt recovery action against the CD.

Accordingly, upon approval of the resolution plan under section 31 of the IBC, claims not incorporated in the plan, including the pre-existing arbitral claims, are extinguished. This provision aims to protect the debtor’s assets and provide a ‘clean slate’ for applicants.

Judicial Interpretation

The courts have considered insolvency matters as non-arbitrable emphasising the in rem nature, impacting the interests of all stakeholders and not just the parties to a contract. In the Booz Allen case, the Supreme Court has categorically held that insolvency matters are non-arbitrable. Once the petition under Section 7 of the IBC is accepted, the proceedings create a third-party interest and will have an erga omnes effect. Nonetheless, exceptions are still evolving around the arbitrability of insolvency matters.

Further, the Supreme Court in Electrosteel Steel Limited v. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (2025), reaffirmed that once a resolution plan is approved under section 31, all pre-existing claims against the CD not recognised in the plan are extinguished, thereby preventing their revival post-CRIP. The Court upheld the doctrine of  “clean slate,” wherein the prior claims are extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan. Therefore, the arbitral awards prior to the resolution plan are void and cannot be enforced post-CIRP. So, the creditors are required to pursue arbitration claims to the resolution professional during the CIRP.

The Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., has reaffirmed that a claim is extinguished after the resolution plan is duly approved, and therefore, would be “non-arbitrable”. The court applied the “Eye of the Needle test”, which requires a court’s pre-referral jurisdiction to have strict limited scrutiny on non-arbitrability. Accordingly, the court should confine itself in examining the existence of the arbitration agreement, if the petition is under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court should only refuse arbitration where the agreement is non-existent or the claim is clearly unenforceable in law. By this decision, the court clarified that a claim against the CD is non-arbitrable once the resolution plan is approved.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE MORATORIUM

The courts have successfully carved out exceptions to the statutory moratorium, enabling arbitration proceedings.

1. Proceedings benefiting CD
   The purpose of the moratorium provision is to restrict any legal proceedings detrimental to the CD and all the stakeholders. However, a legal proceeding if beneficial to the CD is not barred. The Delhi High court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Jyoti Structures Ltd., held that an arbitration proceeding initiated by the CD or which does not diminish the assets of the CD may continue. The court reasoned that it is to allow asset maximization, aligning with the IBC goals.
   
   
2. Counterclaims
   The courts have permitted counterclaims, while the position has seemed to vary and be interpreted. The counterclaims are allowed if they are inextricably linked with the claims initiated by the CD. In Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. IVRCL Ltd., NCLT held that a counterclaim filed by the creditor would be a proceeding against the CD and would be subject to the embargo in section 14. However, the tribunal noted that a counterclaim filed by the CD could proceed before the arbitral tribunal even when the moratorium subsists.
   
   The court has also clarified that the counterclaim against the CD per se is not a threat to the assets of the CD, but the restriction under section 14 is triggered only when the amount is to be paid or recovered.
   
   
3. Proceedings under Articles 32, 226, and 136
   The prohibition under section 14 of the IBC does not apply to the proceedings initiated under Article 32, 226, or 136 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for any suit or case pending before the Supreme Court or the High Court, the moratorium will not apply.

Other Jurisdictions

The conflict of arbitration and insolvency is not unique to India. In the international setting, Singapore follows a similar approach, by holding that disputes arising from insolvency or the pre-insolvency rights and obligations to be non-arbitrable. In the UK, flexibility is given to the scope of arbitrability of insolvency matters. Especially, in claims involving foreign insolvency proceedings or when the claims do not engage the interests of third parties, the claims were held to be arbitrable. The courts in the US allow limited arbitration to decide the amount of creditors’ claims.

Conclusion

The conflict of arbitration and insolvency still lingers and impacts commercial disputes. While courts have made efforts to bridge the gap and balance insolvency and arbitration, there are several legal and policy issues left unaddressed. A party should carefully opt for arbitration and ensure that during the insolvency proceedings, the claims are made part of the resolution plan. Otherwise, the party would be left with no option to pursue their claims as the moratorium subsists. However, it is clearly set out that arbitration of claims without minimising the value of the assets of CD or involving the third-party interests are allowed in limited cases. Therefore, the parties should carefully consider the arbitration and insolvency clauses in commercial transactions.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Kandukuri Lakshmi Priya is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

Efficient and enforceable processes to settle cross-border disputes are more important than ever as India’s worldwide commercial presence grows, particularly in the areas of energy, infrastructure, technology, and foreign investments. For high-stakes contract disputes, Indian parties frequently choose a neutral overseas venue, even with advancements in domestic arbitration laws. Dubai has emerged as a strong contender: its geographical proximity, hybrid legal systems, advanced institutional frameworks, and favourable enforcement environment make it exceptionally attractive for Indian businesses.

Why Dubai Matters for Indian Cross-Border Arbitration

1. Strategic Location & Legal Duality
   With its convenient travel and time zone, Dubai is well-connected to India and other MENA countries, which is essential for handling international arbitrations. To provide clarity on the governing law and venue selection, contracts now usually stipulate arbitration “under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)”.

2. Consolidation and Institutional Strength
   Under Dubai Decree No. 34 of 2021, DIFC-LCIA and the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre were consolidated into DIAC, which now serves as Dubai’s primary arbitration institution with streamlined rules that over virtual hearings, expedited procedures, consolidation, joinder, and third-party funding with mandatory disclosure.

3. Enforcement Efficacy
   Dubai institutions have a proven track record in facilitating award enforcement. Abu Dhabi’s Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of DIAC awards even when parties had initially agreed on DIFC-LCIA rules, acknowledging the shift under Decree 34. Furthermore, in Singapore, courts have enforced DIAC provisional awards despite procedural variances—so long as parties showed submission to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4. Enforceability and Reciprocity Issues
   Under India’s Arbitration Act, Section 44, enforcement of foreign-seated awards requires the territory to be notified as reciprocating. The UAE is not on that list; thus, Indian parties must first go through UAE courts to convert the award into a decree, enforceable under Section 44A of the CPC—a procedural workaround that works but adds steps.

5. Modernizing Indian Arbitration and Maintaining Relevance
   India is advancing its arbitration framework via proposed reforms like the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2024, the establishment of the Arbitration Bar of India, and plans for a Permanent Court of Arbitration office in Delhi, all signalling a drive to align with global standards.

Drafting Efficient Arbitration Clauses for Indian Counsel

To harness Dubai’s advantages in arbitration, Indian legal teams should:

• Clearly define the seat vs. venue—for example, specifying “seat of arbitration: DIFC (Dubai), hearing venue: Dubai” helps reduce ambiguity.
• Select DIAC and its updated rules post-Decree 34 to ensure modernization, efficiency, and institutional support.
• Opt into emergency relief provisions, consolidation, and expedited proceedings—now all part of DIAC’s playbook.
• Include governance clarity around language, evidence management, timelines, and costs.

Enforcement Strategy: Dual-Jurisdiction Considerations

In Dubai/UAE

Under Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 and DIFC Arbitration Law, awards must be in writing, signed by a majority, reasoned, and delivered within set timelines. Courts may allow corrections or interpretations within 30 days, and enforcement must follow specific procedural rules.

In India

Although India generally enforces New York Convention awards, limitations like public policy grounds, delay in filing, or non-notified reciprocal status can complicate enforcement. Therefore, structuring for enforceability—like ensuring award ratification into decrees—is crucial.

Institutional Collaboration & Strategic Advantages

Active engagement with Dubai’s arbitration ecosystem—through rule consultations, training, and panels—enables Indian counsel to influence procedural evolution, align operational expectations, and foster smoother case handling across jurisdictions.

Sectoral Strengths of Dubai Arbitration

• Construction & Infrastructure: Expertise in FIDIC disputes and delay-quantum analysis is abundant in Dubai.
• Energy & Commodities: Regional familiarity with trade norms and charterparty frameworks provides comfort to Indian traders.
• Technology & Fintech: DIFC’s common-law environment suits disputes involving IP, data regimes, and digital contracts.
• Joint Ventures & Shareholder Disputes: Emergency arbitration and neutral courts help maintain continuity during disputes.

Pitfalls and Mitigation Tactics

• Over-complex clauses can delay proceedings—keep tiers simple.
• Seat-law mismatch creates interpretive risks—choose wisely.
• Weak evidence preservation undermines claims—establish litigation-hold processes.
• Enforcement uncertainty demands proactive planning, especially given India’s non-notification status under Section 44.

Building India’s Internal Capability

To embed Dubai-incorporated arbitration into India’s long-term strategy, enterprises should:

• Create dispute playbooks detailing preferred seats, institutions, and escalation steps.
• Form panel counsel combining Indian and Dubai-based practitioners.
• Implement data retention and cybersecurity policies for cross-border arbitrations.
• Train deal teams on clause drafting, early dispute recognition, and enforcement frameworks.

Conclusion

Indian companies now have a major strategic advantage when it comes to negotiating and handling cross-border conflicts due to Dubai’s rise as a neutral, well-connected, and enforcement-ready arbitration hub. It is a logical alternative for Indian businesses looking for efficiency and credibility in dispute resolution because of its close proximity to India and its status as a major international commerce and financial hub. Indian businesses can ensure both procedural certainty and the practical enforceability of awards by carefully crafting arbitration clauses at the contract stage, planning enforcement strategies from the beginning of business dealings, and actively collaborating with respectable arbitral institutions located in Dubai. Businesses will be able to use Dubai’s arbitration ecosystem not just as a foreign arbitration venue but also as a smooth extension of India’s larger international dispute-resolution framework by developing complementary domestic legal and institutional skills in India. In the end, this strategic alignment can lower transaction risks, boost investor confidence, and put Indian companies in a better position to compete in the global economy.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Rishiraj Nalte, is an intern at Law Square  and a student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

The relevance of Intellectual Property (IP) has grown significantly in the technologically and commercially advanced economy. As businesses expand globally, IP disputes in international commercial transactions have become more common. Singaporean companies engaged in India often find themselves navigating complex challenges around licensing, technology transfers, distribution agreements, and IP exploitation.

While traditional litigation remains a recognised path for resolving IP disputes, arbitration is now increasingly being preferred for adjudicating IP disputes. Arbitration has emerged as a cost-effective, efficient, and flexible method for resolving cross-border IP disputes.

Arbitration in IP Disputes

Conventionally, arbitration was not perceived as suitable for IP disputes, as  IP rights were seen as statutory rights granted within a territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the arbitrability of IP disputes has been subjected to judicial interpretation in various jurisdictions. However, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) paved the way for the arbitrability of IP disputes through its Arbitration and Mediation Center in 1994.

Arbitration is time-efficient, cost-effective, and flexible, making it a preferred dispute resolution mechanism. Moreover, parties have autonomy in choosing the expert arbitrator and the procedural aspects. Arbitration proceedings maintain confidentiality, serving as a safeguard to the interests of the businesses from public disclosure. As a neutral forum, it avoids the risk of ‘home-court advantage’ in cross-border IP disputes. With the New York Convention, the enforceability of arbitral awards made it a stronger and reliable Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. Thus, arbitration has gained wide acceptance as a globally suitable dispute resolution mechanism for IP disputes.

Arbitration of IP disputes in India

Arbitration in India is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. The act governs both the domestic and the international commercial arbitration. The act aims to provide autonomy to the parties with minimal court interference and provides enforceability of foreign arbitral awards.

The arbitrability of IP disputes has been subjected to judicial debate in India. In Booz Allen v. SBI Home Finance, the Supreme Court laid down the principles of arbitrability, deciding only the ‘rights in personam’ as arbitrable, and ‘rights in rem’ were non-arbitrable. However, this changed with subsequent rulings. In Eros International Media Limited v. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court held that infringement and passing off actions were right in personam and therefore arbitrable. Subsequent cases varied based on each case and the nature of the dispute.

Nevertheless, the settled principle is that IP disputes arising from commercial agreements such as licensing, royalties, technology transfer, and joint ventures are arbitrable. However, the questions of validity or grant of IP rights are outside the scope of arbitration, as they involve determination by statute and affect the public domain.

Strategic Considerations

Singapore is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, with a modern legal framework governed by the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and the International Arbitration Act (IAA), while arbitration in India is still evolving to the increasing needs in the globalised world.  Several Singaporean companies enter into cross-border commercial agreements with Indian entities, making dispute resolution a crucial point of consideration.

The following strategic issues must be considered by the parties:

• Choice of Seat and the Governing Law
  • Choosing Singapore as a seat for arbitration provides neutrality, given its reputation as an international dispute resolution hub. With institutions like SIAC, Singapore has been recognised as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction providing cost-efficient and effective awards. Alternatively, India is increasingly presenting itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. But the companies must consider the risk of judicial intervention.
  • The parties should also specify the governing law of the contract, whether Indian or Singapore law, in dealing with commercial activities involving IP disputes.
• Scope of the Arbitration Clauses
  • The parties have to consider the scope of the arbitration clauses. Especially in IP disputes, parties must distinguish between contractual disputes and statutory issues, as the validity or grant of IP rights is not arbitrable. The dispute resolution clauses must include licensing, royalties, confidentiality, and technology transfer disputes.
  • The parties can also incorporate emergency arbitration provisions and interim relief. As SIAC rules provide emergency arbitrator provisions, parties can consider them in the contract to resolve IP disputes where urgent actions are required.
• Institutions or the Forum
  • The Stakeholders are at liberty to choose the forum for arbitration. Opting institutions like SIAC, ICC, or WIPO can provide procedural certainty and access to experienced arbitrators. While ad hoc arbitration can be less predictable and tedious.
• Enforcement of Awards
  • Both India and Singapore are signatories to the New York Convention, which enables the enforceability of arbitral awards across jurisdictions. Over 170 states are part of the New York Convention, providing finality and enforceability to the decisions made by the arbitrators. Therefore, the awards made in one jurisdiction are enforceable in other jurisdictions, giving the business a high degree of certainty.

Conclusion

For the Singapore entities engaging in business in the Indian market, arbitration is an optimal pathway to balance cost-efficiency, legal certainty, efficiency, and confidentiality in cross-border IP disputes. While the arbitrability of IP disputes remains, a question decided on a case-by-case basis, it is certain that IP disputes arising out of commercial agreements are well-suited for arbitration. In essence, arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism aimed at preserving business relationships in Singapore-India IP transactions while providing finality and enforceability to the awards.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Kandukuri Lakshmi Priya is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

This Article examines how inheritance of Dubai real estate intersects with Indian succession laws, focusing especially on non-Muslim Indian nationals. While lex situs(law of the place where property is located) dictates that property succession follows the law of the property’s location, cross-border holdings raise procedural and legal coordination challenges, notably balancing Dubai’s estate-management systems, such as Law No. 15 of 2017 and the DIFC’s Wills & Probate Registry, with Indian personal law. To guarantee enforceable, jurisdiction-aware estate planning, the paper lists relevant legal frameworks, pinpoints areas of contention, and makes tactical suggestions.

The globalisation of wealth has led many Indian nationals and NRIs to invest in Dubai real estate. Upon death, however, the estate’s cross-jurisdictional nature invites legal complexity. Indian succession laws govern Indian assets, while Dubai’s legal framework, including Law No. 15/2017 on non-Muslim inheritance and the DIFC Wills & Probate Registry, governs succession of immovable property in Dubai. This paper dissects how these systems interact and how to plan effectively.

Legal Frameworks

There are various laws that are involved and overlap while considering the legal framework in place in Dubal for people of Indian origin. These laws primarily govern the management and transfer of property after the initial owner has passed way leaving a will or a statement to transfer to a person.

• Indian Succession Law
  In India, succession, while codified, is heavily influenced and depends on religion and testamentary instruments, which have resulted in succession laws becoming part of customs and traditions under the eyes of the Indian legal framework. The Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies generally, complemented by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Muslim personal laws for intestacy and wills by community. Immovable property must follow the laws where the property is situated, so Dubai real estate falls outside Indian succession purview, even for Indian citizens.

• Dubai’s Inheritance & Probate Regime
  Law No. 15 of 2017 (Dubai)
  Dubai Law No. 15 of 2017 has established a regime for non-Muslim wills and probate matters. It institutes a Wills & Probate Registry that accommodates non-Muslims registering wills for estate administration in Dubai, and provides mechanisms for execution through court orders.
  
  The law allows non-Muslim expatriates to have wills executed under their home-country law, especially when assets are situated in Dubai. Article 6 creates the registry, and Articles 8–12 address registration conditions, executor appointment, contest periods, and execution protocols.

• DIFC Wills & Probate Registry
  Non-Muslims under the DIFC Resolution No. 4 of 2014 and reaffirmed by Law No. 15/2017 are allowed to expats to register wills (e.g., property wills, full wills, guardianship wills) under common-law principles. Registered wills are administered by DIFC Courts and recognized for probate, providing clarity and streamlining of estate transfers.

Jurisdictional Principles and Conflict Points

While discussing jurisdiction matters especially over cross country conflicts the courts emphasise of precedents and legal theory to conclude and pass judgements.

• Lex Situs
  Real property is governed by the law where it is located. Hence, Indian wills—even if legal in India—do not automatically govern Dubai real estate; compliance with UAE legal procedures or registry is essential.

• Recognition of Foreign Wills
  Unless properly registered under DIFC or Dubai Law No. 15/2017, foreign wills (including Indian wills) must be legalised , translated into Arabic, and certified in Dubai courts; otherwise, Sharia law may automatically apply.

• Dual Probate / Succession Certificates
  Transferring title becomes more complicated and time-consuming as heirs frequently require probate in India and a probate order or succession certificate in Dubai (via Dubai Courts or DIFC Courts).

Procedural Requirements for DLD Transfer after Death

The Dubai Land Department (DLD) requires, at minimum:

• A death certificate, attested and translated into Arabic.
• A probate ruling or heirship certificate from Dubai or recognized foreign court.
• Passports/IDs of heirs.
• The original title deed.
• A No Objection Certificate (NOC) from lenders or developers.

Following a DIFC Grant of Probate, additional documents include:

• A court order issued by Dubai Execution Court affirming the DIFC grant.
• Passports of heirs.
• Powers of Attorney (notarized, legalized, translated);
• Original title deed.
• DLD transfer fees.

Illustrative Scenarios

• Scenario A – Indian national with DIFC-registered will Probate via DIFC Courts; then DLD transfer with streamlined process and documentation.
• Scenario B – Indian law will only (not registered in Dubai). Requires probate in India, legalisation and translation, plus separate probate or recognition by Dubai Courts before DLD transfer.
• Scenario C – Intestate (no will). Dubai Courts may apply Sharia law; heirs must pursue court-issued succession declarations or inheritance plans to transfer title, especially important if no will is recorded under Law 15/2017.

Strategic Recommendations

For the ease of the people, there may be certain recommendations that may be taken into consideration for future discussion revolving around Dubai succession laws that may make it more favourable for people who are considering buying assets in Dubai.

• Draft jurisdiction-specific wills: Separate wills for India vs Dubai assets, each limited to their jurisdiction.
• Register wills in Dubai: Use the Dubai Courts registry or DIFC registry for non-Muslims in accordance with Law No. 15/2017.
• Authenticate and translate documents: Ensure proper legalisation and Arabic translation of death certificates, wills, powers of attorney.
• Appoint local executors: To expedite administration, designate executors who reside in each jurisdiction.
• Coordinate with lenders: Secure NOCs early for mortgaged properties.
• Engage cross-border legal counsel: Estate lawyers in India and Dubai to navigate dual systems effectively.
• Tax planning: Although the UAE imposes no inheritance tax, Indian capital gains and compliance implications apply upon future sale or transfer.

Conclusion

Cross-border succession involving Indian nationals and Dubai real estate revolves around the central tenet of lex situs. When combined with Indian personal law complexities, this demands meticulous, jurisdiction-aware planning. Jurisdiction-specific wills, proactive registration in Dubai, local documentation readiness, and coordinated legal representation can make succession smoother, more efficient, and legally secure.it would be recommended for people who are purchasing to hire compliance officer for registration and other work to avoid discrepancies and future conflicts. while the laws still remain complicated it does not absolutely restrict succession of assets for people of Indian origin living in Dubai and remains a desirable place to purchase assets.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Rishiraj Nalte, is an intern at Law Square  and a student, Alliance University, Bangalore.

Singapore is a financial and business hub in Asia, attracting significant Private Equity (PE) and Venture Capital (VC) transactions. Singapore has ranked top in the World Bank’s New Business Ready 2024 Report, suggesting the ease of doing business in the country. It has also emerged as an international dispute resolution hub, with cross-border transactions being resolved through arbitration and mediation. Beyond its economic standing, robust institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) have made Singapore a preferred venue for resolving cross-border disputes. Parties opt for Singapore as the seat to resolve disputes, preferring out-of-court conflict resolution.

Importance of Dispute Resolution Clauses

In private equity and venture capital transactions involving cross-border elements, dispute resolution clauses are more than boilerplate clauses, as they directly influence the cost, enforceability, and ultimately the outcome of the dispute. These clauses mainly set out the forum, governing law, and procedural framework for resolving conflicts among investors, founders, and other stakeholders. As these transactions involve stakeholders and assets from multiple jurisdictions, determining the law to be applied in dispute resolution is crucial.

Cross-border transactions invariably involve complexities such as divergent legal systems, varying procedures, dispersed assets across locations, and conflicting regulatory compliances. Thus, well-crafted dispute resolution clauses are important, as they minimise dispute costs, hasten resolution and impact effective enforcement, anticipate the risks, streamline the process, and ensure that the resolution mechanism is aligned with desired commercial objectives.

Cross-border Risks in Dispute Resolution

Following are some of the risks that parties must consider in dispute resolution clauses:

• Choice of law
  The parties must make a choice of law suitable to govern and determine the contractual rights and obligations. The governing law, as determined, would be applied in the effective dispute resolution. Ambiguity in the governing law brings with it the risk of another jurisdiction’s law being applied, affecting the desired outcome.
  
  In Anupam Mittal v. Westbridge, the Singapore Court of Appeal clarified that the court should first assess arbitrability under the law of the arbitration agreement and then consider the law of the seat (Singapore) to determine subject matter arbitrability, highlighting the significance of choice of law. Thus, for an arbitration proceeding, both the law of the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat must allow the arbitrability of the subject matter.
  
  The dispute resolution clause has to specify the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and the parties have to confirm that both the chosen law and the law of the seat permit arbitration of the subject matter to avoid any risk in dispute resolution.
  
  
• Jurisdiction or Forum Selection
  With Singapore as the seat for dispute resolution, the parties must also consider the appropriate forum for the dispute to be resolved. There are institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), which have their procedural aspects impacting the real outcome. SIAC offers internationally recognised arbitration services through the International Arbitration Act (IAA), SICC is specialised in complex cross-border litigation, and SIMC facilitates mediation for international commercial disputes. So, the parties must also decide on the forum and the procedural aspects governing that forum to avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes. The parties have the option to choose arbitration, mediation and litigation for dispute resolution.

• Enforcement of Judgement or Award
  Many parties fail to consider the point that the forum chosen must also be competent to enforce the award or the judgements; otherwise, the entire proceedings become futile. The arbitral awards given by SIAC are enforceable in more than 170 states that are part of the New York Convention. However, the decrees or judgements given by the courts in Singapore will be only enforceable in the counterparty’s jurisdiction if such country has reciprocal enforcement. The Indian government has designated Singapore as a ‘reciprocating territory’, enabling enforcement of judgements of Singapore courts by the Indian courts. Thus, dispute resolution clauses must also consider the enforcement challenges or risks while determining the forum.

• Scope of Arbitration Clauses
  Many joint venture-related cases are often heard and decided by arbitration. According to the 2024 SIAC Annual report, 93% of the cases decided were international in nature, involving parties from various jurisdictions. However, the scope of arbitration clauses must be carefully considered in cases involving multiple related disputes. If all the matters are not governed by the same agreement having the arbitration clause, uncertainty as to what claims are to be decided through arbitration or in court could occur.

In Crystal-Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd v Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd, the dispute arose from the Equipment Transfer Agreement (ETA) dealing with the transfer of equipment, while the AH equipment claim was based on an agreement made over email. The High Court has taken a generous approach in interpreting arbitration clauses, providing that disputes fall under an arbitration clause until proven otherwise, and held that the AH equipment claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, the court has also held that the subject matter of ETA did not extend to equipment other than AH equipment, and thus, the arbitration agreement did not apply to other equipment claims. Therefore, this case highlights the requirement of carefully considering the scope of arbitration clauses.

Singapore’s Advantage as a Seat for Dispute Resolution

Singapore has an advanced legal structure resolving international commercial disputes with specialised institutions. Through arbitration, mediation and litigation, Singapore has demonstrated itself to be an ideal destination for stakeholders for dispute resolution in cross-border transactions. Due to its neutrality and readiness to handle cross-border disputes, Singapore has been favoured over other jurisdictions. Parties choose Singapore as the seat without restricting their choice of the substantive law, which plays a critical role in complex cross-border PE/VC transactions. Further, the arbitration laws are aligned with the UNCITRAL model law. Both the Arbitration Act and IAA provide autonomy to the parties to make their choice of law and arbitration procedures.

With institutions like SIAC, SIMC and SICC, it provides a specialised and comprehensive ecosystem for dealing with commercial disputes. The enforceability of the outcomes is also crucial, and Singapore provides enforceability and finality to the decisions. While the dispute resolution in the West increases the costs, Singapore is preferred for its cost efficiency without undermining the quality of services. Thus, Singapore’s legal structure, specialised institutions, neutral framework, enforceability, cost efficiency, and geographical advantage make it a preferred seat for dispute resolution that meets the needs of the parties in complex cross-border transactions.

Conclusion

In essence, dispute resolution clauses play a crucial role in cross-border transactions, especially private equity and venture capital transactions. Singapore, as a leading business hub, has also established itself as a neutral venue for dispute resolution. The specialised institutions and their legal framework have further increased the interest of parties to choose Singapore as the seat. However, considering the risks in dispute resolution clauses in these cross-border transactions can majorly impact the costs and desired outcomes.

• Sanjay Sethiya is the Founding Partner at Law Square, Advocates & Solicitors.
• Kandukuri Lakshmi Priya is an intern at Law Square and a 4th year student, Alliance University, Bangalore.