Chennai snapshot: Dispute resolution, insolvency

As courts make headway with backlogs, technology and intellectual copyright cases open a fresh arena in dispute resolution

The past 18 months have reshaped the commercial dispute resolution landscape in India. The Madras High Court’s Commercial Division has settled into a rhythm, the Chennai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has begun to clear a longstanding backlog, and the arbitration framework is being reassessed against the practical realities of enforcement. A new category of disputes has also emerged: technology and intellectual property rights, where the underlying record is almost entirely electronic. For commercial parties and their counsel, the strategic selection of forum has become the single most important early decision in any dispute.

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has delivered measurable improvements matching the pace of commercial litigation. Case management hearings are rigorously observed, and pre-institution mediation under section 12A imposes, at minimum, a structured pause before litigation begins. The Madras High Court’s dedicated Intellectual Property Division, notified in April 2023, consolidated IP matters before specialist benches, absorbing more than 2,000 cases transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

National Judicial Data Grid figures indicate that aggregate pendency across India’s courts surpassed 52 million cases in 2025, with Tamil Nadu alone confronting about 2.9 million pending cases. The case clearance rate hovers around 95% for every 100 new cases filed. In most IP suits, the interlocutory order remains the decisive stage; the final decree frequently follows long after the commercial outcome has been determined.

Institutional arbitration has been the stated objective of successive amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In practice, parties in Chennai continue to default to ad hoc arbitration before retired judges, and the efficiencies offered by institutions such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration are realised only where both parties commit to institutional procedures.

Enforcement remains the critical bottleneck. Successful awards routinely become the beginning rather than the conclusion of litigation, moving through section 34 and section 37 proceedings before execution. Where the counterparty lacks solvency or reputational exposure, the court’s commercial division may offer a faster outcome.

Technology and IP disputes constitute the most significant growth area. The entire record is almost always electronic, and key challenges centre on online trademark use, software copyright infringement and platform takedown proceedings. For these matters, section 63(4)(c) certificates, the admissibility of screenshots, and the forensic integrity of server logs have moved from procedural afterthoughts to threshold issues.

The deponent produced by the opposing party is typically a legal officer. Trial counsel must decide, well in advance, whether to press the technical record or confine examination to matters within witness competence. Both approaches are defensible; making the choice by default is not.

The NCLT Chennai bench has regained momentum, aided by the opening of the NCLAT Chennai bench in 2021, and the expansion of the NCLT Chennai to two courts. The broader IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) picture is instructive. According to the IBBI’s quarterly newsletter for July-September 2025, creditors have realised about 33% of admitted claims and 171% of liquidation value across closed CIRPs (corporate insolvency resolution processes).

Financial creditor-initiated proceedings have performed notably better, with realisations at about 188% of liquidation value. Resolution plans have addressed aggregate debt of about INR12 trillion (USD126.36 billion) over nine years of the code’s operation.

The qualifications are equally significant. Resolutions now take an average of 597 days, well beyond the 330-day statutory timeline, with creditor realisations declining about 15% past the nominal limit, and a further 5% past 600 days.

For operational creditors, the IBC functions more as a recovery lever than a resolution mechanism: about 52% of their matters conclude through section 12A settlement before the CIRP formally commences.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, which received presidential assent on 6 April 2026, introduces creditor-led insolvency, group insolvency and cross-border frameworks. Whether these translate into measurable improvement will depend on bench capacity.

Dispute resolution in Chennai in 2026 rewards the strategic selection of forum: the most valuable contribution counsel can make is identifying with clarity and candour where the matter should properly proceed.