East Meets Gulf: Dissecting the Arbitration Frameworks under the Revamped MCIA 2025 Rules
India Focus
Khushboo ShahdadpuriPartner,Dispute Resolution
Gayane GulyanAssociate, Dispute Resolution
UAE parties are increasingly doing business in India, and vice versa, with bilateral trade reaching over USD 100 billion in 2024–25. The recent India-UAE Bilateral Investment Treaty and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement have deepened economic ties and enhanced legal cooperation, making Indian arbitral institutions like the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (“MCIA”) more relevant for UAE parties seeking efficient and enforceable dispute resolution mechanisms.
In 2025, the MCIA released its new Arbitration Rules, marking its most significant update to date. In this article, we highlight and compare the key innovations and salient provisions in the MCIA 2025 Rules. We also explore how these rule reforms interplay with the arbitration rules of the UAE arbitral institutions, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) 2022 Rules and the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (“arbitrateAD”) 2024 Rules, as well as some other major arbitration rules, including the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) 2021 Rules, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) 2025 Rules, amongst others.
The MCIA 2025 Rules mark a substantial update from the previous 2016 edition, expanding from 36 to 49 provisions. Notable enhancements include mechanisms for multi-party and multi-contract disputes, expedited procedures, and increased transparency. These revisions are welcome and come amid a period of rapid growth for the MCIA, which saw a 48% increase in new cases in 2024, with disputes valued at over USD 258 million up from approximately USD 175 million the previous year. A breakdown of the key innovations that the MCIA 2025 Rules entail are explored below:
The MCIA 2025 Rules introduced a comprehensive framework for managing complex disputes involving multiple parties and contracts. Parties can now file a single Request for Arbitration to initiate multiple arbitrations arising from different but related arbitration agreements (Rule 5). This is unlike the ICC Rules (Article 9) but similar to the SIAC Rules (Rule 15). There are also expanded provisions allowing consolidation of arbitrations under multiple contracts under various conditions, including compatible arbitration agreements (here we note there is no guidance in the Rules as to the definition of compatible agreements, e.g. where the number of arbitrators or the seat of arbitrations are different) and common legal relationships in the MCIA 2025 Rules (Rule 6). Consolidation requests can be made either to the MCIA Council (the body responsible for implementing the MCIA 2025 Rules) or the tribunal, depending on the timing of such a request, i.e. before or after the constitution of the tribunal. Further, Rule 7 enables parallel proceedings to be conducted simultaneously, subject to the same tribunal appointed and a common question of law or fact in each arbitration. Finally, Rule 8 permits the joinder of additional parties, subject to the tribunal’s discretion.
Similar to these provisions of the MCIA 2025 Rules, the arbitration rules of arbitrateAD and the DIAC also support consolidation and joinder, enhancing procedural efficiency.
With these enhanced rules, parties can now leverage MCIA’s expanded multi-party and multi-contract framework to streamline proceedings and reduce fragmented proceedings - especially in complex commercial disputes involving layered contractual relationships or consortiums, highly relevant for construction arbitration context. The ability to consolidate, conduct concurrent proceedings, and join non-parties offers strategic procedural efficiency and a strong cost controlling tool.
As trade and investment flows between India and the UAE continue to deepen, the alignment of arbitration rules enhances legal predictability and fosters confidence in regional dispute resolution.
MCIA 2025 Rule 16 (Early Dismissal and Summary Procedure) empowers tribunals to dismiss claims or defences that are manifestly without merit, outside of tribunal’s jurisdiction or those prima facie unlikely to succeed. This provision is drafted in a manner that allows parties to proactively request for unmeritorious, vexatious and jurisdictionally flawed claims to be struck out early in the process - an invaluable tool for cost control and strategic case management, similar to the provisions under the SIAC Rules. Closer to the UAE,arbitrateAD’s Article 45 also empowers tribunals to dismiss claims lacking merit. While the DIAC Rules do not contain a specific rule for early dismissal of claims, they do include provisions that allow tribunals to manage proceedings efficiently and address unmeritorious claims. For instance, Article 3.4 of Appendix I to the DIAC Rules stipulates that if a party fails to pay its share of the advance on costs, the tribunal may consider the claim withdrawn. This provision, among others, ensures that claims lacking financial backing, which may indicate a lack of merit, can be dismissed at an early stage. These mechanisms reduce delays and costs, aligning with the trends in arbitration and dispute resolution globally.
The new Rule 17 (Expedited Procedure) raises the minimum threshold for the expedited procedure to apply to disputes at approximately USD 1.5 million. Notably, even where the value of the dispute is below this minimum threshold, the tribunal has the discretion to opt out from the expedited procedure. While this is similar to most major arbitration rules, the threshold value of when these provisions apply differ between them. For instance, the threshold for expedited procedure under the DIAC Rules is less than the MCIA 2025 Rules (approximately USD 272k as opposed to USD 1.5 million respectively), while the threshold for the arbitrateAD is more than the MCIA 2025 Rules (approximately USD 2.45 million). In contrast, the SIAC Rules have added a further distinction for low value claims under the Expedited Procedure (under approximately USD 7.4 million) and for very low value claims under the Streamlined Procedure (claims under approximately USD 740k).
Rule 19 (Emergency Arbitrator) contains refined provisions for interim relief before constitution of the tribunal; it clarifies that any interim order or award of the emergency arbitrator ceases to be binding if the tribunal is not constituted within 90 days of the order or award, or when a final award is made, or if the claim is withdrawn. Further, under Rule 21 (Security for Costs), tribunals may order security for costs to discourage frivolous claims, following an application by a party and after giving opportunity to respond. In other words, such a request is made with the notice to the counterparty and is thus expressly not an ex parte application, unlike, e.g., the SIAC Rules, which do not expressly require an application for security for costs to be made with the notice to the other party.
Finally, Rule 28 (Preliminary Issues) allows proceedings to be split and early determination of preliminary issues – an extremely helpful instrument for cost-efficiency in cases that are the subject of procedural and jurisdictional challenge. For practitioners and commercial parties this means they can use this tool to isolate certain issues early in the process, potentially saving significant time and cost by avoiding full merits proceeding.
The MCIA 2025 Rules regulate the appointment, role, and removal of tribunal secretaries in Rule 13, with safeguards to define and limit their impact on the proceedings, ensure impartiality and prevent delegation of decision-making. Pursuant to Rule 31 (Legal Representation), any change in legal representation now requires approval from the tribunal, particularly where this may affect the tribunal’s composition (due to the rules on impartiality and independence) or the finality of the award (due to potential challenges at enforcement stage if due process is not maintained). Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules also contains similar provisions.
For further transparency, Rule 37 (Third-Party Funding) now mandates disclosure of third-party funders, similar to Article 11(7) of the ICC Rules. In the spirit of enhancing overall openness of arbitration, under Rule 47 (Publication) the MCIA may publish redacted awards, subject to party objection. The SIAC Rules 38 (Third-Party Funding) and 60 (Publication) mirror these provisions. Finally, Rule 48 (Information Security) of the MCIA 2025 Rules introduces protocols for data protection where parties may agree on, and tribunals may order, measures to protect information security. Transparency is also a shared priority by arbitrateAD, which mandates the disclosure of third-party funding (Article 48), as well as the DIAC, which sets similar provisions at Article 22. Both the MCIA and the DIAC Rules allow publication of redacted awards, promoting jurisprudential development. ArbitrateAD’s Article 41 requires electronic signatures and digital delivery, promoting time-efficiency. All of these are a valuable contribution towards the development of arbitration jurisprudence.
Practitioners must now carefully manage tribunal secretary involvement and legal representation changes to avoid challenges to impartiality or enforcement. Commercial parties should proactively disclose third-party funding and consider the reputational and jurisprudential value of allowing redacted award publication. Additionally, agreeing on robust information security protocols can help protect sensitive business data, especially in cross-border or high-stakes disputes.
The new MCIA 2025 Rules introduces more flexibility in the conduct of the proceedings and the constitution of the tribunal by Rule 10.5 (Appointment of Arbitrators) allowing the MCIA Council to appoint an arbitrator of the same nationality as a party if appropriate and if no party objects, and by allowing remote hearings to be ordered by the tribunal under Rule 34.4 (Hearings). There is also now an express obligation on the parties to act in good faith for fair, efficient, and expeditious conduct of the arbitration under Rule 27.2 (Conduct of Proceedings).
Likewise, and in furtherance of pursuing greater flexibility in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, the DIAC and the arbitrateAD Rules also emphasise party autonomy while ensuring impartiality at the constitution of the tribunal. ArbitrateAD’s Article 13 requires arbitrators to be of different nationality unless agreed otherwise. The DIAC Rules introduce alternative appointment mechanisms and empower its Court of Arbitration to oversee appointments and challenges.
It is notable that more than 90% of the MCIA-administered arbitrations arose from ‘organic’ MCIA clauses that were included in the relevant contracts at the time of drafting, and 90% of the awards issued by the MCIA tribunals in 2024 were delivered within 18 months. This reflects MCIA’s broader institutional evolution, and the changes introduced with the MCIA 2025 Rules will likely continue this trend of the MCIA’s increasingly strong credibility amongst commercial parties and efficiency in dispute resolution.
The evolution of arbitration frameworks in India and the UAE through the MCIA 2025, arbitrateAD 2024 and DIAC 2022 Rules signals a strategic shift toward harmonisation, procedural modernisation, and global best practices.
Ultimately, these developments are more than routine institutional upgrades, but rather they reflect a maturing arbitration ecosystem that is increasingly responsive to the needs of modern commerce. For legal professionals, the opportunity lies in utilising these frameworks to craft dispute resolution strategies that are both legally sound and commercially reasoned and smart.
As trade and investment flows between India and the UAE continue to deepen, the alignment of arbitration rules enhances legal predictability and fosters confidence in regional dispute resolution. The comparative innovations, ranging from multi-party mechanisms and expedited procedures to third-party funding disclosures and digitalisation, equip stakeholders to navigate cross-border disputes seated in India and UAE with better clarity and control. These provisions will provide commercial parties the necessary tools for effective dispute resolution in MENA and India, thereby creating strong foundations for the disputes to stay in their home region, as well as attracting global disputes to land there too.
For further information,please contact Khushboo Shahdadpuri and Gayane Gulyan.
Published in October 2025
