India’s energy sector needs a sharper distinction between disputes that belong before specialised regulators and those that can be efficiently resolved through arbitration, legal leaders said at the ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026.
During the panel Energy Disputes: The Case for Sector-Specific Arbitration, moderated by Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Senior Partner, SKV Law Offices, speakers said conventional arbitration has not always delivered the speed and cost benefits originally expected, particularly in disputes involving government entities and complex regulatory frameworks.
Sandeep Chowdhury, Group General Counsel, Suzlon Energy Ltd, said renewable energy disputes often require both mechanisms. Tariff and other regulatory questions, he argued, are better handled by sectoral regulators with technical expertise, while contractual issues can appropriately move to arbitration.
“Regulators are subject-matter experts,” he said, noting that arbitral tribunals may require significant time to understand highly technical tariff and regulatory issues.
Contractual disputes need a different approach
Preet Sethi, Deputy General Counsel, Vedanta, said businesses should first determine whether a disagreement needs to become a formal dispute at all. Low-value matters and disputes involving strategically important relationships should often be addressed through negotiation, mediation or settlement before arbitration is considered.
She also stressed that legal teams must keep contracts commercially focused. Legal vetting should protect business risks without allowing legal complexity to overwhelm the underlying commercial objective.
Kumar Ankit, General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer – Senior Vice President, Shree Cements, said arbitration costs have increased and businesses increasingly evaluate settlement against the opportunity cost of money locked in prolonged disputes.
“A bird in hand is better than two in the bush,” he said, arguing that a commercially sensible settlement today may be preferable to an uncertain recovery many years later.
He also highlighted the difficulties created when public-sector counterparties invoke sovereign or public-law considerations in fundamentally commercial disputes.
Regulators retain an advantage in complex sectoral matters
Vineet Bose, Head Legal, Ambuja Cement, said energy disputes frequently combine contractual, technical and regulatory questions, making the choice of forum critical.Citing issues such as must-run obligations, scheduling and grid constraints, Bose said a sectoral regulator may be better placed where decisions affect multiple stakeholders or require specialised technical understanding.
At the same time, he supported separating purely contractual disputes from broader sectoral questions rather than treating every disagreement through the same mechanism.
The panel also called for stronger conciliation and mediation frameworks, particularly for disputes involving government entities, alongside clearer timelines for appeals.
The major takeaway was that the energy sector does not need a single dispute-resolution route. It needs a framework that matches the forum to the dispute, preserving regulatory expertise for sector-wide and technical matters while making arbitration faster, more disciplined and commercially meaningful for contractual conflicts.
The remarks came as the fifth edition of ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026 is currently underway in New Delhi, bringing together legal professionals, policymakers, industry leaders and dispute resolution experts to discuss the evolving commercial justice ecosystem. The conclave, themed “Building Trust, Speed & Certainty in India’s Commercial Justice Ecosystem,” is examining the institutional and legal reforms needed to strengthen India’s position as a trusted destination for global business, investment and dispute resolution.
