The Hidden Shift: Why Indian Startups Are Steering Founders Toward Foreign Arbitration

Introduction

A quiet shift is underway in India’s startup ecosystem—more and more startups are embedding clauses in contracts that push founders into arbitration proceedings held outside India. Jurisdictions like Singapore, London, and the Netherlands are increasingly chosen as the arbitration seat, even when all parties involved are Indian nationals.

This development may be legally permitted, but it raises deeper concerns about access to justice, power asymmetry, and founder rights in venture-backed companies.

Why Foreign Arbitration? The Real Reasons

1. Investor-Friendly Environments

International arbitration hubs such as Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) or London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) are known for being efficient and investor-centric. These jurisdictions often allow more flexibility than Indian courts, especially for handling shareholder disputes that might not be considered arbitrable under Indian law.

2. Greater Legal Certainty

International investors prefer predictability, and courts in places like Singapore have a well-documented record of enforcing arbitration awards quickly. In contrast, Indian courts can take years to resolve similar issues.

3. Easier Enforcement of Interim Orders

Even if arbitration takes place abroad, Indian courts have shown a willingness to enforce interim relief orders passed by foreign-seated tribunals—making this hybrid model attractive for foreign investors seeking enforceability without local litigation hurdles.

What’s the Legal Backing?

India’s Supreme Court has ruled that two Indian parties can voluntarily choose a foreign seat for arbitration, as long as the contract makes it explicit. In such cases, Indian courts may still grant interim relief if requested under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

However, this creates a complex legal environment when disputes touch upon issues considered non-arbitrable under Indian company law—like oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement—making the enforceability of some foreign awards questionable.

The Risks for Founders

1. Imbalance of Power

Most early-stage founders are heavily reliant on investor capital and often agree to boilerplate contracts drafted by VCs or legal teams representing them. Arbitration clauses are often buried deep in these agreements, giving investors a significant upper hand if conflicts arise.

2. Expensive Legal Process

Arbitration in foreign jurisdictions can be prohibitively expensive. Legal fees, filing costs, and travel expenses can put a heavy financial burden on founders, deterring them from fighting legal battles even when their rights are violated.

3. Limited Recourse in India

Once the seat of arbitration is established abroad, Indian courts typically do not entertain parallel legal action for the same dispute. This could effectively block Indian founders from accessing local remedies under Indian law.

Notable Cases That Sparked Debate

• Shaadi.com vs. WestBridge Capital: A dispute between founder Anupam Mittal and investors reached Singaporean arbitration, bypassing Indian company law mechanisms like NCLT.
• Amazon vs. Future Retail: This multi-jurisdictional battle involved arbitration seated in Singapore and enforcement issues in Indian courts, spotlighting how complex and drawn-out such cases can become.

These high-profile cases demonstrate how foreign-seated arbitration has been used strategically, not just to resolve disputes—but also to delay or complicate enforcement within India.

Why This Is a Hidden Trend

• Startups using offshore holding structures (like in Delaware, Cayman Islands, or Singapore) often follow global investor standards, where foreign arbitration clauses are common.
• Founders don’t always read the fine print, especially during early-stage funding rounds where the focus is on raising capital quickly.
• Legacy clauses persist even after reverse-flipping—startups that initially incorporated abroad and later re-domiciled in India often carry over outdated arbitration clauses that still point to foreign jurisdictions.

Red Flags Founders Should Watch For

How Founders Can Protect Themselves

• Negotiate domestic arbitration clauses, or seek dual-seat arbitration where India retains interim jurisdiction.
• Review contracts with independent legal counsel before signing any term sheet or shareholder agreement.
• Ask for clarity on governing law and dispute resolution procedures—don’t rely on verbal assurances.
• Push for defined exit triggers and valuation mechanisms to avoid valuation disputes that end up in foreign tribunals.
• Revisit old contracts if your startup has flipped back to India; update arbitration clauses to match current structure.

The Bigger Impact: Silencing Founders?

This growing preference for offshore arbitration is creating a two-tier legal system within Indian startups. On one side, investors benefit from faster, global resolution systems; on the other, founders often feel cornered and voiceless, unable to afford or navigate international legal systems.

What began as a mechanism to ensure neutrality is now becoming a tool for control. Arbitration abroad may look efficient on paper, but for many founders, it means giving up access to home-ground justice.

Final Thoughts

Foreign-seated arbitration clauses are no longer a rare exception—they are quietly becoming the norm in Indian startup contracts. Founders must treat these clauses with the same seriousness as equity terms or valuation. As the Indian startup space matures, legal awareness must evolve too.

Startups thrive on innovation, but that innovation shouldn’t come at the cost of fairness, transparency, and access to justice.

Read More: Deepfake Evidence in Indian Courts: Navigating a Legal Grey Zone