Research & Articles

Is Arbitration Faster Than Court Litigation? What the Timelines Actually Show

Authored by R & D Law Chambers LLP | Practice led by Ravish Bhatt. Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England & Wales) | Bar Council of Gujarat, Enrolment G/504/2008 | SRA (non-practising) Registration No. 492 477 | ADIT, Chartered Institute of Taxation, London

Published: 18 August 2026 | Last reviewed: 18 August 2026 | Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

This article states the position under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended in 2015, 2019 and 2021. It deals only with duration. The separate question of why businesses choose arbitration, which turns on enforceability rather than speed, is addressed in our companion article.

Short answer. Often, but the comparison is usually made against the wrong endpoint. Arbitration is frequently faster to an award. It is not always faster to payment, because a losing party can apply to set the award aside under section 34 and, if it also obtains a stay, hold up recovery while that challenge and any section 37 appeal run through the courts. Time to award and time to money are different measurements.

Index of Topics

The question behind the question
What the statute actually requires: section 29A
Why arbitration is usually faster to an award
The part nobody counts: from award to payment
When arbitration is slower
What actually determines duration
Drafting for speed
Frequently asked questions
How R & D Law Chambers works on these matters

1. The Question Behind the Question

Short answer. A business asking whether arbitration is faster is usually asking when it will be paid. Those are different questions. Measuring to the award flatters arbitration; measuring to recovery is the number that affects cash flow, and it is the one this article uses.

Almost every published comparison of arbitration and litigation measures arbitration from commencement to award, and litigation from filing to judgment. On that basis arbitration usually wins, and the answer is presented as settled.

It is the wrong measurement. An award is not money. In a contested matter, the award is the point at which the losing party decides whether to pay or to challenge, and if it challenges and secures a stay, the dispute moves into the court system for a further phase that the standard comparison excludes entirely. A business planning around a two-year arbitration and receiving payment in year five has not been badly served by arbitration. It has been badly advised about what it was buying.

2. What the Statute Actually Requires: Section 29A

Short answer. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires an award in an India-seated domestic arbitration within twelve months of completion of pleadings, extendable by six months with consent and thereafter only by the court. For international commercial arbitration the same timetable is directive rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court held in Tata Sons v Siva Industries in 2023.

This distinction is routinely missed, and it matters commercially. A foreign party contracting with an Indian counterparty and choosing an India seat should not assume the twelve-month discipline applies to it. Where the arbitration is international commercial arbitration within section 2(1)(f), the tribunal is required to endeavour to conclude within twelve months, but the mandatory consequence, that the tribunal’s mandate terminates absent extension, does not attach in the same way.

Two further points follow from the drafting of section 29A. The clock runs from completion of pleadings, not from the notice invoking arbitration, so the period before pleadings close is uncounted and is frequently where months are lost. And extension beyond eighteen months requires an application to the court, which means the timetable of a supposedly private process can end up dependent on a court listing.

3. Why Arbitration Is Usually Faster to an Award

Short answer. Four structural reasons: the timetable is set by the parties and the tribunal rather than by a court list, the tribunal is dedicated to the single matter, document production is narrower than court discovery, and there is no general right of appeal on the merits.

The timetable is not queued

A commercial court hears many matters and a case advances when it reaches the top of the list. A tribunal is constituted for one dispute and fixes dates with the parties. The difference is not that arbitrators work faster; it is that the matter is not waiting behind other matters.

Procedure can be tailored

Institutional rules permit expedited procedures, limited document production, sole arbitrators for lower-value claims, and hearings conducted remotely. Where the parties genuinely want speed, the instruments exist. Whether they are used is a matter of drafting and of conduct, not of the forum itself.

Finality

There is no appeal on the merits from an arbitral award. Section 34 provides a challenge on limited grounds, not a rehearing. In principle that removes an entire tier of proceedings that a litigant would face.

In principle. Section 5 of this article explains why that principle is weaker in practice than it sounds.

4. The Part Nobody Counts: From Award to Payment

Short answer. An award may be challenged under section 34 before the court, and the decision on that challenge is appealable under section 37. Since 2015 that challenge does not by itself stay enforcement: the losing party must obtain a stay, which is discretionary and, for a money award, usually conditional on security. A determined debtor can still keep the matter in court through two tiers, but only a stay holds up recovery.

The grounds under section 34 are narrow and the court is not sitting in appeal on the merits. That is the theory and it is correct. The practical difficulty is that narrow grounds do not prevent an application from being made, and the time consumed is a function of court process rather than of the strength of the challenge.

Since the 2015 amendment to section 36 the position is more favourable to the award-holder than most parties assume. Filing a section 34 application does not by itself stay the award. Under section 36(2) the losing party must make a separate application for a stay, and under section 36(3) a stay is discretionary and, where the award is for money, ordinarily granted only on terms that the sum is secured or deposited, with an unconditional stay confined to a prima facie case of fraud or corruption.

Until a stay is granted the award is enforceable and execution can proceed alongside the challenge rather than behind it. The result is a set of levers, not a wall. A claimant advised before the contract is signed can resist the stay, insist on security as its price, and press execution while the section 34 and section 37 proceedings run. The assumption that a challenge freezes recovery until the courts are finished describes the position before 2015, not the position now.

None of this makes arbitration a poor choice. It makes speed a poor reason for choosing it. The sound reasons lie elsewhere, principally in enforceability, and we address those separately.

5. When Arbitration Is Slower

Short answer. Multi-party and multi-contract disputes, jurisdictional challenges, tribunal constitution difficulties, and cases requiring court assistance for interim relief or evidence. In each, the flexibility that makes arbitration efficient in a simple dispute becomes a source of delay.

Constituting the tribunal. A court assigns a judge administratively. A three-member tribunal requires appointments, disclosures, possible challenges, and coordination of three professional diaries for every hearing date. Months pass before the tribunal exists.
Jurisdictional objections. A challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction is decided by the tribunal under section 16, and that ruling can be revisited later. A dispute about whether there is a dispute can consume a year before the merits are reached.
Multi-party and multi-contract structures. Arbitration rests on consent. Where a project involves an employer, a contractor, subcontractors and guarantors under separate contracts, joinder and consolidation are constrained in ways that court procedure is not, and related disputes may proceed in parallel.
Court assistance. Interim relief under section 9 and evidence under section 27 require an application to the court, so the arbitration’s progress becomes dependent on court timelines at precisely the point where urgency is greatest.

6. What Actually Determines Duration

Short answer. The conduct of the parties, the volume of evidence, the number of arbitrators, and the quality of the arbitration clause. The choice between arbitration and litigation is a weaker predictor of duration than any of these.

Factor	Effect on duration
Party conduct	The largest single variable. A party that wants delay can seek extensions, raise objections and make interlocutory applications in either forum.
Number of arbitrators	A sole arbitrator schedules faster than a three-member tribunal. For lower-value disputes the difference can exceed six months.
Volume of documents	Document-heavy construction and EPC disputes take time in any forum. The forum does not change the volume of evidence.
Quality of the clause	A defective clause produces preliminary litigation about the clause itself. This is entirely avoidable and entirely self-inflicted.
Whether a stay of the award is obtained	The decisive factor in time to payment. A challenge alone does not hold up enforcement since 2015; only a stay does, and for a money award a stay is usually conditional on security. Excluded from almost every published comparison.

7. Drafting for Speed

Short answer. If speed matters, the clause must say so. Specify a sole arbitrator for disputes below an agreed value, adopt the institution’s expedited procedure, set document production limits, and fix a timetable that runs from the notice of arbitration rather than from completion of pleadings.

A clause that names an institution and stops there imports that institution’s default timetable, which is designed for the general case rather than for the parties’ priorities. If a business genuinely values speed, four provisions do most of the work.

A sole arbitrator below an agreed monetary threshold. Constitution and scheduling both accelerate.

Express adoption of the institution’s expedited procedure where the rules provide one, rather than leaving it to be applied for later.

Limits on document production, stated in the clause rather than negotiated after the dispute has begun, when neither side will concede anything.

A timetable anchored to the notice of arbitration, so that the pre-pleadings period is inside the clock rather than outside it.

None of this helps if the seat is chosen carelessly, because a seat that is not a notified territory produces an award that cannot be directly enforced in India. Speed without enforceability is not a saving. We deal with clause architecture in detail in our series on cross-border arbitration with Indian parties.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Is arbitration always faster than litigation in India?

No. Arbitration is frequently faster to an award, because the timetable is fixed with the parties rather than by a court list and there is no appeal on the merits. It is not always faster to payment. A losing party can apply under section 34 to set the award aside and appeal under section 37, but since 2015 that challenge does not by itself stay enforcement. Recovery is delayed only if the debtor also obtains a stay, which is discretionary and, for a money award, usually conditional on security.

How long does an arbitration take under Indian law?

Section 29A requires an award in an India-seated domestic arbitration within twelve months of completion of pleadings, extendable by six months with the parties’ consent and thereafter only by the court. For international commercial arbitration the twelve-month period is directive rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Tata Sons v Siva Industries in 2023.

Does the twelve-month limit apply to foreign parties?

Not in the same way. Where the arbitration is international commercial arbitration within section 2(1)(f) of the Act, the tribunal must endeavour to conclude within twelve months, but the mandatory termination consequence does not attach as it does in domestic arbitration.

Can an arbitral award be appealed?

There is no appeal on the merits. An award may be challenged under section 34 on limited grounds, and the decision on that challenge is appealable under section 37. The court hearing a section 34 application does not sit in appeal over the tribunal’s findings.

What makes an arbitration slow?

Party conduct, the volume of documents, constituting a three-member tribunal, jurisdictional objections, multi-party structures where joinder is constrained, and applications to court for interim relief or evidence. The choice of forum predicts duration less well than any of these.

How can a contract be drafted to make arbitration faster?

Provide for a sole arbitrator below an agreed value, adopt the institution’s expedited procedure expressly, set document production limits in the clause, and anchor the timetable to the notice of arbitration rather than to completion of pleadings.

9. How R & D Law Chambers Works on These Matters

We advise on Indian law for businesses in India and internationally, wherever a matter has an India connection. On duration, our contribution is usually made at the drafting stage, because the clause determines how much of the timetable the parties control and how much they inherit.

We also conduct section 34 and section 37 proceedings and enforcement before the Indian courts, which is why this article measures to payment rather than to award.