The Indian legal system is primarily based on the common law system, as it relies on judicial precedent and follows the doctrine of stare decisis (ie, courts are bound by earlier decisions of higher courts and in appropriate cases, by their own prior decisions). This ensures consistency in the law, with decisions of the Supreme Court of India being binding on all courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (the “Constitution of India”). At the same time, India has well-developed codified laws including the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Courts therefore apply these statutes while also relying on precedents, giving the system a common law character with civil law features.

India follows an adversarial legal system, where parties present their own evidence and arguments and the judge acts as a neutral decision-maker. Courts have however recognised limited inquisitorial powers for instance in Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the scope of magisterial power was expanded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to include a supervisory role over police investigations.

The legal system does not provide for pre-trial depositions. Under Order XI of the CPC, parties may seek discovery and interrogatories before trial, but evidence is led only at the trial stage under Order XVIII, where examination-in-chief is by affidavit and cross-examination is conducted orally in court.

Indian procedure allows both oral arguments and written submissions, with written arguments (under Order XVIII Rule 2 of the CPC) supplementing oral advocacy and courts regulating the time and manner of such arguments.

Witness evidence remains central in Indian court proceedings. In civil cases, the witness gives their examination-in-chief (their initial statement supporting a party’s case) under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, with a copy provided to the opposing party. This is followed by oral cross examination and re-examination. The evidence may be recorded by a court-appointed Commissioner. The court can also recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC to ask questions if needed, but this power is used only in limited situations.

India’s judicial framework is tiered and functionally specialised, with different courts and forums addressing disputes based on subject matter, value and parties involved. The Supreme Court of India sits at the apex, primarily exercising appellate and constitutional jurisdiction, while High Courts supervise subordinate courts and may also hear certain civil matters at first instance. Trial-level disputes are handled by district courts.

Alongside this structure, specialised forums such as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) deal with insolvency and corporate disputes. The Competition Commission of India deals with competition law matters, and consumer forums are covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, among others.

Within this framework, aviation disputes are forum-specific rather than centralised:

• commercial disputes relating to aircraft and aviation equipment are treated as “commercial disputes” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and are heard by Commercial Courts or High Courts;
• regulatory and licensing matters fall within the DGCA, while tariff-related issues such as airport charges including landing, parking, cargo and passenger service fees are determined by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority, with appeals to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal; and
• passenger claims (including delay, cancellation or deficiency of service) are pursued before Consumer Commissions, and insolvency-related aviation disputes are addressed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before NCLT/NCLAT. The Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025 further strengthens enforcement of lessor rights, designating High Courts as the primary forum in aircraft financing and leasing disputes.

In practice, aviation disputes may involve parallel or overlapping proceedings, particularly where regulatory, contractual and insolvency issues intersect. For example, lessors may simultaneously pursue insolvency remedies while seeking regulatory directions relating to aircraft deregistration. Procedurally, judgments are expected under Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC to be delivered within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) of conclusion of hearings; however, reserved judgments are common, and timelines frequently extend due to systemic constraints (like heavy caseloads, adjournments).

The duration of proceedings therefore depends on the nature of the dispute and the forum invoked. Although statutory timelines exist for instance while proceedings under the IBC are required to conclude within 180 days (extendable up to 330 days), in practice they may extend considerably, as seen in the Jet Airways insolvency, which continued for over five years before liquidation was ordered in 2024.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is encouraged but not mandatory. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “A&C Act”) and Section 89 of the CPC support arbitration and mediation. The new legislation – ie, Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 goes a step further and states that where parties have not agreed on a mechanism, compensation disputes may be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. There are no penalties for declining ADR. Arbitration is often preferred in aviation matters due to its relative speed, confidentiality and flexibility.

Building on the multi-forum dispute resolution framework outlined above, arbitration plays a central role in aviation disputes in India, particularly given their commercial and cross-border character. The governing legislation is the A&C Act which applies to both domestic and international arbitration and is broadly aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, though not a verbatim adoption, as clarified by the Supreme Court of India (see Konkan Railway Corp. v Rani Construction (2002) 2 SCC 388, and Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552). The Indian framework also departs in certain respects, notably Section 9 of the A&C Act, which permits courts to grant interim relief before, during and even after the award (until enforcement), reflecting a more expansive model of judicial support.

The arbitration regime has been progressively refined through amendments.

• 2015 Amendment – strengthened enforcement of awards (by removal of automatic stay), introduced timelines for making awards, enabled interim relief in foreign-seated arbitrations, and narrowed the scope of “public policy” for setting aside awards.
• 2019 Amendment – focused on institutionalisation, including the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India, prescribed timelines for completion of pleadings and introduced confidentiality provisions for arbitration proceedings including confidentiality obligations.
• 2021 Amendment – allowed stay on enforcement where awards are tainted by fraud or corruption and removed prescribed arbitrator qualifications.

The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (yet to be notified) proposes several forward-looking changes – ie, recognition of emergency arbitration and enforcement of emergency orders in India-seated proceedings, delegation of certain court powers to arbitral institutions, replacing “place” with “seat” to align with international terminology, establishing an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal for award challenges currently handled by courts, and recognising arbitration agreements executed through digital signatures.

In the aviation context, recent legislation reflects a shift towards sector-specific integration with arbitration principles.

• The Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025, based on the Cape Town Convention, creates a specialised regime for aircraft financing, leasing and repossession. It strengthens creditor and lessor rights, and facilitates effective enforcement of arbitral outcomes (by ensuring priority repossession rights, recognition of registered international interests, and overriding conflicting insolvency provisions), particularly in cross-border disputes. 
• Similarly, the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 modernises the earlier regulatory framework and introduces structured dispute resolution mechanisms, including arbitration in certain compensation-related matters. It permits the Central government to unilaterally appoint arbitrators in compensation disputes. This provision of unilateral appointment may be open to challenge in light of principle as decided by the Supreme Court (see Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760) – ie, power to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator for one party is violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Overall, while India does not yet have dedicated aviation arbitration institutions, the framework demonstrates a clear move towards combining general arbitration law with sector-specific requirements, enhancing certainty, enforceability and investor confidence in aviation disputes.

International arbitration is the preferred route for resolving aviation disputes in India, particularly in aircraft leasing and financing arrangements. These transactions are typically cross-border, involving foreign lessors and Indian airlines, and the underlying contracts almost invariably contain arbitration clauses with foreign governing law and seats. While passenger and regulatory disputes are typically handled by consumer forums or statutory authorities, commercial aviation disputes are usually resolved through arbitration, with seats often in London, Singapore or Paris, and Indian courts generally giving effect to such clauses.

Arbitration is preferred because it offers certainty and neutrality. Foreign awards are enforceable in India under Part II of the A&C Act, which provides comfort to international stakeholders. The ability to choose a neutral forum and appoint technically qualified arbitrators also makes it well-suited to complex aviation disputes. Recent jurisprudence has further strengthened the framework, for instance, in ASF Buildtech v Shapoorji Pallonji, the Supreme Court 2025 9 SCC 76 held that arbitral tribunals may implead non-signatories to the arbitration agreement where they are closely connected with the underlying transaction. This reflects a pro-arbitration approach, as it allows tribunals greater autonomy to decide the scope of proceedings without excessive court interference.

The India legal framework also actively promotes ADR at the domestic level. Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, parties must attempt pre-institution mediation in non-urgent commercial disputes before approaching the court. In addition, under Section 89 of the CPC, courts may direct parties to explore settlement through mediation, arbitration or conciliation during the proceedings where appropriate.

Jurisdiction of Indian courts over a defendant is determined by three key factors:

• territorial jurisdiction – under Section 20 of the CPC, a court is competent where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part (as reaffirmed in BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v S.P. Singla, (2023) 1 SCC 693);
• pecuniary jurisdiction – the forum depends on the value of the claim. For instance, the District Courts in Delhi generally have jurisdiction to handle cases up to INR2 crore, while the High Court handles cases above that; and
• subject-matter jurisdiction – certain disputes are assigned to specialised forums based on their nature.

In aviation matters, jurisdiction may also arise under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which permits action to be brought by a plaintiff before any of the following – ie, at the carrier’s place of business, place of contract, destination or, in some cases, the passenger’s residence. Such passenger claims are typically pursued before Consumer Commissions.

Depending on the nature of the dispute, proceedings may also lie before specialised forums such as the NCLT/NCLAT (for insolvency) or the Competition Commission of India (for allegation of abuse of dominance by airlines). Where government action is involved, parties may invoke writ jurisdiction before High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the applicable forum is determined by a combination of location, claim value and the nature of the dispute, rather than a single uniform rule.

Limitation periods in aviation matters are governed by a combination of general and sector-specific legislation.

The Limitation Act, 1963 (the “Limitation Act”) provides the overarching framework. A suit filed beyond the prescribed period is liable to be dismissed as a matter of law, regardless of whether limitation is raised as a defence by the other side (Section 3, Limitation Act).

The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 prescribes a specific two-year limitation period for claims arising from passenger death or injury, loss or damage to baggage, and cargo claims. The limitation period begins to run from the date of the aircraft’s arrival at the destination; the date on which it ought to have arrived; or the date on which the carriage stopped.

For domestic consumer complaints such as “deficiency in service” in connection with flight delays or cancellations, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 sets a two-year limitation period (Section 69(2)). Anti-competitive practice complaints follow a three-year period under the Competition Act, 2002.

In cases involving a continuing breach of contract or a continuing wrong, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every point during which the breach or wrong continues (Section 22, Limitation Act). This principle has practical significance in ongoing service failures or repeated regulatory breaches.

India does not follow a general system of pre-action protocols, but certain statutory requirements apply. Section 80 of the CPC requires a mandatory two-month notice before instituting suits against the government or public officials. In addition, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires parties to attempt pre-institution mediation in non-urgent commercial disputes, failing which the plaint is liable to be rejected, as affirmed in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1.

A civil action is commenced by filing a plaint, which must set out the material facts, cause of action, relief sought and valuation for jurisdiction and court fees. In commercial suits, parties are required to disclose and file all documents they rely upon at the outset, in accordance with Order XI of the CPC, and subsequent production is generally restricted.

Order XIII-A of the CPC permits the court to decide the dispute at an early stage without recording oral evidence, where a party has no real prospect of succeeding or defending the claim. In such cases, the court may determine the matter on the basis of the material on record and, where necessary, allow additional documents to be placed on record.

Pleadings may also be amended with the leave of the court under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, where such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, once the trial has commenced, amendments are permitted only upon showing that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Service of summons is governed by Section 27 of the CPC. Once a suit is admitted, the court issues summons and is primarily responsible for effecting service. The usual mode is personal service through a process server under Order V of the CPC. Where personal service is not feasible, the court may permit substituted service such as affixation at the last known address or publication in a newspaper – under Order V Rule 20. In commercial matters, service is more flexible and may also be affected through registered post, courier or electronic means such as email, which has helped reduce delays in practice.

A defendant located outside India may be sued, with service effected in accordance with applicable international and statutory procedures. Where the defendant is in a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1965, summons is transmitted through the designated Central Authority via the Ministry of Law and Justice. For defendants located in non-signatory countries, the summons is served through the Indian High Commission or Embassy in that country, in accordance with Order V Rule 25 and Section 78 of the CPC read with Order XXVI Rule 22 of the CPC.

In the case of foreign state-owned parties, Section 86 of the CPC requires prior Central Government consent before instituting a suit against a foreign state. However, the Supreme Court of India in Ethiopian Airlines v Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539 clarified that commercial transactions including routine carriage contracts do not attract sovereign immunity. Consumer proceedings against foreign state carriers are similarly not barred.

If the defendant does not appear despite valid service, the court may proceed ex parte under Order IX Rule 6 CPC and determine the matter on the basis of the plaintiff’s evidence. The defendant may subsequently seek to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC upon showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Only advocates enrolled with a State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 have the right to appear and plead before Indian courts. Enrolment requires a law degree from a recognised Indian university and registration with the Bar Council of India (BCI). Foreign lawyers have no right of audience in litigation and are expressly prohibited from appearing before courts, tribunals or statutory authorities.

Foreign Lawyers in India

Foreign-qualified lawyers do not have rights of audience in litigation. Under the Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 (amended in 2025), foreign lawyers and law firms may engage in non-litigious practice in India, limited to advising on foreign law, their home legal system and international legal issues, including international arbitration and cross-border transactions. They are not permitted to advise on Indian law.

Such practice is permitted either upon registration with the BCI granted on a reciprocity basis – ie, only where Indian lawyers are afforded comparable rights in that jurisdiction – or on a restricted “fly-in, fly-out” basis, subject to conditions including limited duration (not exceeding 60 days in a 12-month period), no permanent presence, and compliance with disclosure and ethical requirements.

Foreign lawyers may also participate in international commercial arbitrations seated in India, provided the dispute involves foreign or international law elements and the specified conditions are satisfied.

In aviation disputes, particularly those involving aircraft leasing and financing, this framework operates in practice through a division of roles: foreign counsel advise on governing law and participate in arbitration, while Indian advocates conduct court proceedings. This has become more pronounced following India’s implementation of the Cape Town Convention through the Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025, which has strengthened creditor and lessor rights and provided a clear enforcement framework, thereby leading to an increase in cross-border leasing and repossession disputes being formally pursued.

Attorney-Client Privilege

Attorney-client privilege is recognised under Sections 126–129 of the Indian Evidence Act (now reflected in Sections 132–134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). In In Re: Summoning of Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties (judgment dated 31 October 2025 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No 2 of 2025), the Supreme Court held that:

• communications between a client and an independent advocate are privileged, and advocates cannot ordinarily be compelled to disclose such communications or be summoned in relation to them;
• this protection does not extend to in-house counsel, as they are employees and not independent practitioners under the Advocates Act; and
• accordingly, communications with in-house legal teams do not attract full legal professional privilege, though limited protection may arise under Section 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (insofar as any communication made by the in-house counsel to the legal adviser of their employer is concerned).

The general rule under Section 35 of the CPC is that costs follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party may be directed to pay the successful party’s costs, though the court retains discretion to depart from this principle.

Recoverable costs typically include court fees, basic litigation expenses and certain procedural costs. Court fees governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 are paid upfront by the plaintiff and may be recovered if the claim succeeds. Additional costs may include notice charges, document preparation and witness expenses under Order XX-A of the CPC, along with compensatory or delay-related costs under Sections 35-A and 35-B of the CPC. In practice, full recovery of attorneys’ fees is uncommon, although courts in commercial matters are increasingly willing to award more realistic costs wherever it seems justified.

A defendant may also seek security for costs under Order XXV CPC, particularly where there is a risk that the defendant may be unable to recover its costs from the claimant if the claim fails – for instance, where the claimant is based outside India or lacks sufficient immovable property in India. This provision serves to protect defendants from frivolous litigation and ensures recovery of costs if the suit fails. Failure to furnish such security may result in dismissal of the suit.

Interim Applications

Parties are entitled to move a range of interim applications prior to trial, and these are aimed at protecting rights and preserving the subject matter of the dispute pending final adjudication. In aviation disputes, this is particularly relevant given the high value and mobility of assets such as aircraft. Common applications include interim injunctions under Order XXXIX of the CPC to restrain wrongful termination or transfer of rights; appointment of a receiver under Order XL of the CPC to take custody or manage assets; and attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII of the CPC to prevent dissipation of assets where there is a risk of non-recovery. Courts may also direct preservation or production of documents to secure evidence.

Early Disposal of a Case

Indian procedure also provides for early or summary disposal in appropriate cases. Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the court may pass judgment on admissions where liability is clearly admitted. More significantly, in commercial matters, Order XIII-A (introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) permits a party to seek summary judgment after filing of the written statement but before framing of issues. The court must be satisfied that the claim or defence has no real prospect of success and that there is no compelling reason to proceed to trial.

Separately, a defendant may seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the threshold, for instance where the claim is barred by limitation, discloses no cause of action, or the court lacks jurisdiction. In commercial disputes, non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is also a recognised ground for rejection.

Taken together, these mechanisms are regularly invoked prior to trial, with interim applications serving to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute, and summary judgment or rejection of plaint operating as the principal tools for early disposal.

Indian courts grant injunctive relief where the applicant establishes a prima facie case that the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and that it would suffer irreparable harm if relief is denied, as reflected in Order XXXIX of the CPC.

The forms of relief are varied. Courts may grant interim/temporary injunctions to maintain the status quo, particularly in disputes involving aircraft repossession or lease termination. Where there is a risk of the defendant dissipating assets, courts grant Mareva injunction – ie, orders restraining the defendant from dealing with its assets through attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. Courts may also issue anti-suit injunctions, restraining a party from pursuing proceedings in a foreign forum in breach of a contractual jurisdiction or arbitration clause.

Urgent relief is available. Ex parte orders may be obtained at short notice often within days of filing. Urgent matters are typically taken up upon being mentioned before the court.

Such orders operate in personam against the parties before the court, though they do not bind third parties. Enforcement outside India depends on recognition by foreign courts.

Non-compliance is treated seriously. Breach of an injunction constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and may invite fines or, in appropriate cases, imprisonment.

India does not follow a broad, automatic discovery regime. Disclosure is limited and court-controlled, with the emphasis on relevance rather than exhaustive production.

Under Order XI of the CPC, parties may seek discovery through interrogatories (written questions) and applications for production and inspection of documents, but only with the leave of the court. The scope is confined to matters in issue, and the court supervises the process. Non-compliance may lead to adverse consequences, including an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (corresponds to Section 119 under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

In commercial disputes, the regime is more structured. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires front-loaded disclosure, with parties filing all relevant documents in their possession or control along with their pleadings, supported by an affidavit. A party that fails to disclose a document at this stage is generally precluded from relying on it later without the court’s permission.

Discovery is therefore largely confined to document production, while witness evidence is led at trial typically by affidavit followed by oral cross-examination. The process remains court-managed, with safeguards to limit scope and control costs.

Aviation disputes follow the same procedural framework as other civil and commercial matters under the CPC, with evidentiary rules governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Proceedings involve a combination of written pleadings and oral hearings. Evidence is ordinarily led by affidavit, followed by cross-examination and re-examination in court. Expert evidence may be adduced where necessary, and the court may, in appropriate cases, appoint an independent expert.

Civil trials in India are judge-led; there is no system of jury trials. Hearings are generally conducted in open court, subject to limited exceptions where proceedings may be held in camera. While verbatim transcripts are not routinely maintained, judgments and orders are public and accessible.

Parties are at liberty to settle disputes at any stage. Settlement terms may remain confidential where the arrangement is recorded privately and the proceedings are withdrawn. Where the settlement is recorded as a consent decree, its terms form part of the court record.

Court approval might be required in limited categories of cases, such as those involving minors or persons under disability. A private settlement is enforceable as a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A consent decree is enforceable in execution under Order XXI of the CPC and may be set aside only on limited grounds, including fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction.

Damages under Indian law are compensatory, aimed at placing the claimant in the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred, as recognised under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. Recovery is confined to losses that arise in the ordinary course or were within the contemplation of the parties.

In aviation matters, liability caps arise in the context of international carriage under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (giving effect to the Montreal Convention). Under the Convention, airlines are strictly liable for passenger death or bodily injury up to 1,51,880 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) – an IMF-defined unit of account, approximately INR1.85 crore at current IMF rates, without needing proof of fault. Above this, liability is unlimited unless the carrier proves it was not negligent.

Crucially, the Convention does not guarantee a fixed minimum compensation: liability is unlimited above the threshold but must be proved. The Kerala High Court confirmed this in National Aviation Company of India Ltd. v S. Abdul Salam (judgment dated 25 August 2011 passed in WA. No 1197 of 2011) (which dealt with the issue of compensation for victims of Air India express crash), holding that while the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (incorporating the Montreal Convention) imposes strict liability, this does not imply a mandated minimum amount of 1 lakh SDR for every claimant regardless of loss.

The Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 does not itself prescribe any independent cap on damages. Its scheme is regulatory in nature, though it may give rise to compensation in specific situations (for instance, where regulatory action impacts aircraft operations). In such cases, the quantum is determined in accordance with the statutory framework or general principles of compensation, rather than any fixed ceiling.

Outside the Convention framework such as in leasing or commercial disputes there is no statutory cap, though damages remain compensatory and punitive awards are rare.

Interest may be awarded for pre- and post-judgment periods. Pre-suit interest may arise under contract or the Interest Act, 1978, while pendente lite and post-decree interest are governed by Section 34 of the CPC and are awarded at the court’s discretion.

Appeals in aviation disputes follow the ordinary civil hierarchy. A first appeal lies from the trial court or Commercial Court to the High Court under Section 96 of the CPC on both facts and law. Where the matter is decided by a Single Judge or the Commercial Division of a High Court, an intra-court appeal lies to a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The ultimate recourse is to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution by way of a Special Leave Petition.

A first appeal entails a rehearing on the record, permitting reappreciation of evidence and reconsideration of findings. However, appellate courts are generally slow to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. A further appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on substantial questions of law. As a rule, new grounds are not permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal, save for pure questions of law arising from the record, including jurisdictional issues.

In regulatory tariff determination matters, orders of AERA are appealable to TDSAT, and decisions of TDSAT are further appealable to the Supreme Court on questions of law. Decisions of the DGCA are ordinarily assailed before the High Courts in exercise of their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

An arbitration agreement is enforceable under Section 7 of the A&C Act if it records a clear and binding intention to refer disputes to arbitration and is in writing. The clause must disclose a definite obligation to arbitrate, not merely contemplate the possibility (see Jagdish Chander v Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719). A clause that permits recourse to civil courts in substitution of arbitration will not qualify as a valid arbitration agreement, as reaffirmed in Alchemist Hospitals Ltd. v ICT Health Technology 2025 SC 1070.

Arbitrability of an issue turns on the nature of the rights involved. Disputes concerning rights in personam are generally arbitrable, whereas rights in rem, sovereign functions, and matters reserved by statute are not (see Vidya Drolia & Ors. v Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1). In the aviation context, commercial arrangements such as leasing, financing and service agreements fall squarely within the arbitrable domain. The Supreme Court has adopted a broad understanding of “commercial relationship” (see R.M. Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v Boeing Company, (1994) 4 SCC 541), and allegations of fraud do not, by themselves, exclude arbitration unless they involve serious criminal elements (see A. Ayyasamy v A. Parema Sivam, AIR 2016 SC 4675; Deccan Paper Mills v Regency Mahavir Properties, AIR 2020 SC 4047).

Indian courts have consistently adopted a pro-arbitration approach. At the stage of referral under Section 8, or appointment under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the court’s scrutiny is confined to the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement, without entering into the merits (see Duro Felguera S.A. v Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729). Arbitration clauses are therefore, in practice, routinely upheld.

The doctrine of separability is recognised under Section 16 of the A&C Act, treating the arbitration clause as independent of the underlying contract. Accordingly, even if the main contract is challenged, the arbitration agreement may survive.

The tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction is recognised under Section 16 of the A&C Act and a jurisdictional objection must be raised at the outset, ordinarily by the filing of the statement of defence. If rejected, the issue can be pursued only in a post-award challenge under Section 34; if accepted, an appeal lies under Section 37.

Courts adopt a restrained approach. At the stage of referral or appointment of arbitrator, the enquiry is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving detailed jurisdictional issues to the tribunal in the first instance.

Indian law also permits extension of arbitration to non-signatories, including foreign entities, where they claim through or under a party or are closely connected with the transaction, particularly in group company or composite transaction situations (see Cox & Kings Ltd v SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2024) 4 SCC 1).

In aviation disputes, particularly aircraft leasing arrangements, the contracts are typically cross-border, involving foreign lessors and governing laws. Parties therefore often choose foreign seats such as London or Singapore. The choice of seat is legally significant: it determines the procedural law of the arbitration and the courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction. Where the seat is in India, Indian courts exercise supervisory control over the arbitration; where the seat is abroad, Indian courts are generally limited to enforcement of the award and granting limited interim relief. The seat may also influence the law governing the arbitration agreement itself, particularly in the absence of an express choice.

Confidentiality in arbitration is now placed on a statutory footing under Section 42A of the A&C Act. As a general rule, the proceedings including pleadings, evidence and hearing records are to be treated as confidential by the parties, tribunal and any administering institution.

This position is not absolute. Disclosure of the award is permitted where necessary for challenge or enforcement, for instance in proceedings under Section 34 (challenge to an arbitral award) or Section 36 (enforcement of an arbitral award as a decree) of the same Act. Beyond that, there is no general right to place arbitral material in the public domain.

An award, once rendered, is final and binding between the parties under Section 35. While the underlying record remains protected, the award itself may be relied upon in subsequent proceedings to the extent it evidences rights already determined.

In aviation disputes, this position may need to be read alongside regulatory requirements. Documents held by authorities such as the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) or Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau are governed by their own disclosure frameworks, and may be produced independently where required, even if similar material featured in the arbitration.

An arbitral tribunal may grant interim (temporary) relief under Section 17 of the A&C Act, including orders for asset preservation, injunctions and securing the claim. Such orders are binding and enforceable as court orders (see Amazon NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 3723).

Courts have concurrent powers under Section 9 to grant interim relief before, during and after arbitration (prior to enforcement). Once the tribunal is constituted, a court shall not entertain a Section 9 application unless the tribunal’s Section 17 remedy is “not efficacious” (Section 9(3)).If a court grants Section 9 relief before the arbitration commences, the arbitral proceedings must be commenced within 90 days of that order, failing which the interim relief is liable to be recalled (Section 9(2); Firm Ashok Traders v G.D. Saluja, AIR 2004 SC 1433).

Indian courts may grant interim measures in support of foreign-seated arbitrations, provided the award is capable of enforcement in India.

Separately, the Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025 (implementing the Cape Town Convention) strengthens the framework for interim relief by facilitating expedited protection and recovery of aircraft-related assets.

Indian law recognises security for costs, though the remedy is primarily available before courts rather than arbitral tribunals. Under Order XXV Rule 1 of the CPC, a defendant may seek an order directing the plaintiff to furnish security where there is a genuine concern that an adverse costs order may not be recoverable most commonly where the plaintiff is resident outside India and lacks sufficient assets within the jurisdiction. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of the suit.

In arbitration, there is no direct equivalent of security for costs under Indian law. Section 38 of the A&C Act allows the tribunal to ask both parties to deposit advance funds to cover the arbitrators’ fees and expenses of the arbitration. Section 31A allows the tribunal to decide, at the end, who should bear the legal and arbitration costs.

These provisions ensure the arbitration can proceed and that costs are allocated, but they do not protect a respondent against the risk of being unable to recover costs from the claimant. For that, the appropriate remedy remains an application before the court under Order XXV of the CPC.

Arbitration in India is governed by the A&C Act. The process is flexible – parties can agree on the procedure, or the tribunal will decide it. Arbitrators are not bound by strict court procedures or evidence rules, so they can consider documents, expert reports and technical material more freely.

Certain safeguards are mandatory: both parties must be treated fairly, given a full opportunity to present their case (Section 18), and arbitrators must remain independent and unbiased (Section 12). Awards must generally be reasoned (Section 31).

Arbitral Tribunals have broad powers, including deciding their own jurisdiction, granting interim relief, appointing experts and allocating costs.

A fast-track option is available (Section 29B), allowing disputes to be decided on documents alone within a shorter timeline.

In arbitrations seated in India, there are no nationality-based restrictions on legal representation. Parties are free to appoint counsel of their choice, including foreign-qualified lawyers, who may participate in international arbitrations in accordance with the Bar Council of India Rules, 2023 (ie, on a non-litigious basis, limited to foreign law and international arbitration work). Arbitrators themselves may be of any nationality under Section 11 of the A&C Act, 1996, subject to the disclosure and independence requirements under Section 12.

Refer to 2.6 Legal Representation in Court and Legal Privilege.

Costs generally follow the event under Section 31A of the A&C Act, meaning the unsuccessful party is usually directed to bear the successful party’s costs, including legal fees and tribunal expenses. The arbitral tribunal may also require advance deposits towards costs (Sections 38–39). Interest may be awarded for both pre-award and post-award periods under Section 31(7), and must be reasonable and compensatory in nature (see Vedanta Limited v Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited (2019) 11 SCC 46).

Arbitration in India follows a flexible approach for collection/presentation of evidence. Under Section 19 of the A&C Act, arbitral tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence and may determine procedure, admissibility and weight of material. Parties typically file documents and witness statements with their pleadings (Section 23), and cross-examination is conducted where required.

Arbitral Tribunals do not have coercive powers over third parties. Under Section 27, the arbitral tribunal, or a party with its permission, may seek court assistance to summon witnesses or compel production of documents. Court orders are enforceable in the same manner as in civil proceedings, including for foreign evidence through commissions (see Stemcor (S.E.A.) Pte Limited and Ors. v Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1179).

An arbitral award must satisfy Section 31 of the A&C Act. It must be in writing, signed by the tribunal (majority suffices), state the date and seat, and contain reasons unless waived or recording a settlement.

Under Section 29A, the award is to be made within 12 months from completion of pleadings, extendable by six months by consent. Any further extension requires court approval. Courts may grant such extension even after expiry of the mandate where sufficient cause is shown, having regard to factors such as complexity or procedural delays (see Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v GM & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3381).

As to remedies, tribunals may grant standard civil relief damages, interest, injunctions and specific performance. The arbitral tribunal’s power to revisit the award is limited to corrections of clerical or computational errors under Section 33.

Domestic arbitral awards may be challenged only on limited grounds under Section 34 of the A&C Act, including invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of notice, excess of jurisdiction (ie, where the tribunal decides matters beyond what was referred to it or grants relief outside the arbitration agreement), and conflict with public policy.

Foreign awards cannot be challenged directly before Indian courts. They can be challenged only at the enforcement stage, where the opposing party may object to enforcement under Sections 48 or 57 of the of the A&C Act on limited grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice.

The standard of review of awards by courts remains narrow and deferential, with no re-examination of merits (see NTPC Ltd. v Deconar Services (P) Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 498). In a landmark ruling, Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd (2025) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court clarified that courts have a limited power to modify awards in narrow circumstances (such as severing invalid portions, correcting clerical or computational errors, or adjusting post-award interest), without undertaking a merits review.

Orders under Section 34 are appealable under Section 37, with further recourse to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Asset identification in India is fragmented and requires recourse to multiple public sources. Corporate information (including shareholding and charges) is available through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal (MCA21); immovable property records are maintained at the state level through Sub-Registrar offices; and, in aviation matters, the DGCA registry reflects aircraft ownership and recorded interests. Pending proceedings and encumbrances may also be traced through court records and filings with the Registrar of Companies.

Pre-judgment protection is available through attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, where there is a real risk of asset dissipation. Courts have also granted Mareva-type injunctions under their inherent powers to restrain dealing with assets, including aircraft.

Post-award or decree, Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC enables the court to direct the judgment-debtor to disclose assets on affidavit. Courts may also look beyond the corporate veil in appropriate cases requiring disclosure from related entities or directors where there is evidence of misuse or asset diversion (see Formosa Plastic Corporation Ltd. v Ashok Chauhan (76 (1998) DLT 817; Jawahar Lal Nehru Hockey Tournament Society v Radiant Sports Management Pvt. Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1798).

A domestic judgment is enforced as a decree under Order XXI of the CPC. Execution proceedings may be initiated before the court which passed the decree or a transferee court (Section 38), within a limitation period of 12 years.

The modes of execution under Section 51 of the CPC include attachment and sale of assets, garnishee proceedings (ie, directions to third parties such as banks holding the debtor’s funds to pay the decree-holder directly), appointment of a receiver, and, in exceptional cases, arrest and detention. In aviation matters, attachment may extend to aircraft and related assets, though garnishee orders are typically the most effective in practice.

Costs are procedural and generally moderate. Timelines, however, depend on asset identification and debtor resistance, and may range from months to several years.

A defendant may oppose enforcement of a domestic judgment through limited procedural avenues under the CPC.

• The judgment may be challenged on grounds of lack of proper service or jurisdiction, particularly in ex parte decrees, by seeking to set aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13.
• The defendant may file an appeal (Section 96 of the CPC; Section 100 for second appeals) and seek a stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 5. Execution may also be stayed in appropriate cases under Order XXI Rule 29.
• Objections may be raised in execution proceedings on limited grounds relating to executability (eg, decree being satisfied, void or incapable of execution).

Enforcement of a foreign judgment in India depends on whether it is from a “reciprocating territory” under Section 44A of the CPC – ie, a country notified by the Government of India whose judgments are recognised for direct enforcement.

If the judgment is from such a territory, it may be directly enforced in India as if it were a decree of an Indian court, and execution proceeds in the usual manner (eg, attachment of assets or garnishee orders).

If the judgment is from a non-reciprocating country, it cannot be enforced directly. The judgment-holder must file a fresh suit in India based on that judgment, and only the decree passed by the Indian court is enforceable (see Moloji Nar Singh Rao v Shankar Saran AIR 1962 SC 1737).

In both cases, enforcement is subject to Section 13 of the CPC. Indian courts may refuse enforcement where the judgment is not on merits, lacks jurisdiction, violates natural justice, is obtained by fraud or is contrary to Indian law.

Under Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC, a foreign judgment of a competent court is treated as conclusive between the parties and operates as res judicata in India, subject to the exceptions set out in Section 13 (such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fraud or conflict with Indian law). The presumption under Section 14 is that the foreign court had jurisdiction, unless proved otherwise. A determination by an Indian court on the conclusiveness of such a judgment may be challenged by way of review or appeal under the CPC. Where the judgment originates from a non-reciprocating territory, it cannot be directly enforced and must be pursued through a fresh suit in India.

For domestic awards, courts will not enforce an award until three months have elapsed from the date it is received, with a possible 30-day extension on sufficient cause, during which the award may be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Foreign awards are enforceable under Part II of the A&C Act, provided four conditions are met:

• the dispute is commercial in nature under Indian law (India has adopted the “commercial” reservation under the New York Convention, 1958 and the Geneva Convention, both of which India has ratified);
• the award arises from an arbitration agreement covered by these Conventions;
• the parties are from a jurisdiction notified by the Central Government; and
• the award is final.

The enforcing party must produce the original or authenticated copy of the award, the arbitration agreement and evidence of the award’s foreign origin.

Domestic arbitral awards can only be challenged only by way of a set-aside petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and once that stage is exhausted, enforcement proceeds under Section 36 without reopening the merits (detailed at 3.11 Appeals)

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India may be challenged only on limited grounds under Section 48 of the A&C Act, including invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, excess of jurisdiction, improper composition of the tribunal, non-arbitrability or conflict with public policy. The review is narrow and does not extend to the merits.

Enforcement may also be refused where the award is not final or has been set aside or suspended at the seat. Where set-aside proceedings are pending abroad, Indian courts may adjourn enforcement and impose conditions. Orders enforcing or refusing enforcement are appealable under Section 50 of the A&C Act.

As regards sovereign immunity, Indian law adopts a restrictive approach. While Section 86 of the CPC requires prior consent to sue a foreign state, courts have held that such immunity does not extend to commercial transactions or arbitral enforcement (see Ethiopian Airlines v Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539; KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3424).

The past year has seen a significant consolidation of India’s aviation legal framework. From a disputes perspective, several developments are noteworthy.

• The most significant legislative reform is the coming into force of the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (effective 1 January 2025), replacing the Aircraft Act, 1934. The statute modernises licensing, safety oversight and operational regulation, and provides a clearer statutory basis for regulatory action – thereby reducing interpretational uncertainty that often led to litigation.
• Equally transformative is the Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025, notified on 16 April 2025, which gives effect to the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol (ratified by India in 2008). This Act recognises creditor rights in aircraft assets and establishes a statutory framework for deregistration and export upon default. This framework has been implemented through the Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Rules, 2026 (notified on 30 January 2026), which introduces a structured process for enforcement. The Rules provide for a defined two-month waiting period during insolvency, during which the aircraft is required to be preserved and creditor access maintained. Upon expiry of this period, remedies under the Cape Town Convention, including repossession, cannot be restricted.
• On the regulatory front, the DGCA’s revised Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section 3, Air transport – Series C, Part I (Issue V) on wet and damp leasing (issued on 6 November 2025) provides greater flexibility by permitting approvals by DGCA beyond strictly emergency situations, subject to regulatory oversight and defined conditions. Wet leases may now be allowed in cases for broader operational shortage cases including unexpected grounding of the aircraft of an existing operator, unscheduled maintenance or other unforeseen circumstances.
• Consumer-facing regulation has also been strengthened. The revised CAR Section 3, Series “M” Part II, notified on 24 February 2026 on ticket refund rules (effective 26 March 2026) introduces a 48-hour “look-in” period for cancellations or modifications without penalty (subject to conditions), mandates faster refund timelines (seven days for credit cards; 14 working days otherwise), and places primary responsibility on airlines even for agent-booked tickets.
• Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025 (notified on 7 November 2025) strengthen the investigative framework and align confidentiality standards with ICAO norms, while the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions) Rules, 2026 (notified on 31 March 2026) introduce a structured regime for obstruction removal both creating clearer bases for enforcement and related disputes.
• On the judicial side, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) may challenge orders of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), reinforcing its role in tariff disputes and likely increasing appellate litigation in this space (see AERA v Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors. (2024) 15 SCC 345).
• The revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms were implemented with effect from 1 November 2025 for airlines, tightened crew duty limits, increased mandatory weekly rest for pilots from 36 to 48 continuous hours, and capped night landings, reflecting a clear regulatory emphasis on fatigue management and safety.
• The past year has also seen regulatory enforcement assume a more visible, multi-forum character. The Indigo crisis, arising from large-scale disruptions linked to crew fatigue and operational planning under revised FDTL norms, triggered co-ordinated scrutiny. Proceedings before the Delhi High Court (Akhil Rana & Anr. v Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, (W.P.(C) 18718 of 2025)) highlighted passenger impact, while DGCA identified deficiencies in operational preparedness and imposed corrective measures, including requiring a bank guarantee of INR50 crore. In parallel, the Competition Commission of India (In Re: Kartikeya Rawal v InterGlobe Aviation Limited in Case No 44 of 2025, Order dated 4 February 2026) initiated an investigation into potential abuse of dominance, indicating that aviation conduct may attract concurrent sectoral and competition law scrutiny.

Taken together, these developments reflect a decisive shift towards greater enforcement certainty, regulatory oversight and multi-forum dispute exposure, with aviation disputes increasingly becoming structured, compliance-driven and, in commercial matters, cross-border in character.