corporate attributes and practices towards arbitration in india

7/28/2019 Corporate Attributes and Practices Towards Arbitration in India

1/24


2/24

2 PwC


3/24

Corporate attitudes and practices 3

The growth in domestic and international trade and commerce hasspurred competition, provided new opportunities and imputed risks.Commercial arbitration in India is witnessing a steady transitionand resolution of domestic and cross border disputes is becomingmore sophisticated. The survey shows that parties are increasinglychoosing to resolve disputes away from the courts through arbitration.This survey is our pioneer effort at exploring the level of knowledge,current practices and perceptions regarding arbitration amongcompanies in India.

In-house counsels are leveraging the advantages offered by this

mechanism including speed of resolution, exible processes andcondentiality of proceedings while overcoming the hurdles ofundue delay in proceedings and lack of institutional arbitrationinfrastructure. The future of arbitration as indicated by the surveylooks cautiously optimistic owing to several advantages anddisadvantages that arbitration provides in the Indian landscape.

We are pleased to share the insights from the survey through thisreport and we hope it will provide interesting trends to companies inIndia.

We are grateful to our respondents consisting of Legal Counsels, Legal

Heads and Company Secretaries of various companies in India whogave their time and thoughts so generously and enthusiastically.

Vidya RajaraoLeader, Forensic Services

Darshan PatelExecutive Director, Forensic Services

Foreword


4/24

4 PwC


5/24

Contents

Dispute Resolution Policy An effective safeguard 08

Arbitration vs. Litigation Pros and Cons 09

Ad-hoc vs. Institutional Arbitration - An Indian perspective 12

Seat of Arbitration Does it really matter? 14Selection of Arbitrators The driving factors behind this decision 15

Effective use of Experts Choosing the right expert 17

Future of Arbitration in India Cautiously optimistic 19


6/24

6 PwC

Arbitration is a leading method for resolvingdisputes arising from commercial agreements and

other domestic and international relationships.The practice of arbitration has developed so asto allow parties from different legal and culturalbackgrounds to resolve their domestic and / or crossborder disputes, generally away from litigation.

This study presents qualitative and quantitativefeedback on the use and future of arbitration inIndia, gathered from 70 respondents comprisingof Legal Counsels, Legal Heads and other legalpersonnel of various companies in India. The survey

was conducted over ten months, through detailedin-person interviews.

The results of this survey broadly emphasisethe attitudes and practices adopted by in-housecounsels in India towards effective resolution ofdomestic as well as cross border disputes.

Key messages from the study are as follows:

Majority of the companies in India have adispute resolution policy

91% of the companies surveyed in India,who have a dispute resolution policy, includearbitration (not litigation) for resolution offuture disputes.

61% of the companies surveyed in India have adispute resolution policy and conrmed inclusion of

a dispute resolution clause in contracts entered bytheir company.

Companies generally indicated a exible approachtowards negotiating arbitration clauses. However,factors such as law governing the arbitration, seatof arbitration and language primarily drive thenegotiation.

Arbitration remains a preferred disputeresolution mechanism, despite certain

loopholes and shortcomings in the arbitrationenvironment in India

An overwhelming majority of the companiessurveyed used arbitration, in isolation or incombination with another dispute resolutionmechanism

Top three factors that make arbitration the mostpreferred dispute resolution mechanism are: speed,exibility and condentiality.

Executive Summary


7/24


Institutional arbitration is yet to be widelyused by companies in India

Majority of the companies that experiencedarbitration preferred ad-hoc arbitration (47%)over institutional arbitration (40%) while 12%indicated a neutral approach.

Further, companies with no prior experience ofarbitration also indicated a preference for ad-hoc arbitration.

Retired Supreme Court / High Court judges

are a preferred choice for arbitrators

Companies with prior experience of arbitrationpreferred retired judges as arbitrators whenthe seat of arbitration is in India and externalexperts for cases where the seat is outside India.

Top three factors that guide the selectionof arbitrators are reputation and expertisein the relevant industry, knowledge of lawapplicable to the contract / arbitration and prior

experience in arbitration.

Companies in India are yet to fully appreciatethe tactical signicance of the seat of arbitration

India, Singapore and England were noted as topthree seats for arbitration.

The choice of seat of arbitration was primarilydriven by factors such as regional advantage, costeffectiveness and advice of solicitors / counsel.

More companies are using expert evidence inarbitration proceedings

More than half of the companies have used expertevidence in arbitration proceedings.

Industry experts or experts for valuation /accounting are typically appointed.

The future of arbitration in India is optimistic

82% of the companies with arbitration experienceindicated that they would continue to use arbitrationin future disputes.

46% of the companies with no arbitration experiencewere also open to using arbitration in future disputes


8/24

8 PwC

61%of the companies engaged incommercial transactions in India and outsidehave indicated having a dispute resolutionpolicy. Companies (36%) that did not havea formal dispute resolution policy alsodemonstrated positive signs of including adispute resolution clause in their contracts.

While drafting a contract, companies surveyed,

indicated that at a minimum they would includepreferred law governing the contract (53%) andseat of arbitration (49%).

Popularity of arbitration as an alternate disputeresolution mechanism is evident as a largenumber of companies are considering arbitrationover litigation to resolve disputes as part of theircrystallised dispute resolution policy (91%).

A dispute resolution policy provides a structuredapproach to resolving disputes, thus providing

guidance to in-house counsel to efciently andeffectively deal with disputes.

A qualitative analysis of the responses revealedsome of the most important benets ofmaintaining a dispute resolution policy:

Facilitates discussion regarding theavailability of important model clausesto mitigate potential risks when a disputearises.

Consistency across departments in thecompany as regards execution of contracts.

Strategic advantage at the time of contractnegotiation.

Guidance for adoption of tiered disputeresolution procedures to minimise costsassociated with dispute escalation. Forexample, in the event of a dispute, thereare pre-determined levels of escalationin the company. This would ensure thatdisputes are addressed in time and by the

relevant authority.

Appropriate guidance for adoptionof dispute resolution mechanismsproportionate to the value at stake, therebyminimising dispute escalation.

Facilitate dialogue between the legaldepartment and the business units in thecompany and thereby enhance awareness ofthe available legal support.

Does your company have a dispute resolutionpolicy?

Yes

No

Not sure

Dispute Resolution Policy An effective safeguard

#1


9/24


86% of the companies surveyed had prior experienceof domestic and / or cross border dispute resolution.When asked what types of resolution processes theyhave used for domestic / international disputes,nearly all respondents (95%) reported usingarbitration either as a standalone mechanism or incombination with other mechanisms (68% usedlitigation, 40% had attempted mediation)1.

1. Categories are not mutually exclusive as certain respondents

used a combination o the above mentioned dispute resolution

mechanisms to resolve multiple disputes in the past.

Why do most companies seek to avoid litigation?

Companies conceded to greater familiarity tolitigation process as opposed to arbitration.However, in most developing nations, litigationbeing a time consuming process, companies havesteered away from using litigation to save timeespecially when large sums of money are lockedin the dispute. Average time taken from thecommencement of arbitral proceedings to the awardis less than three years, according to companies whoused arbitration.

Indicate which o the ollowing dispute resolution mechanisms were used by

your company*

In your experience, what is the average time an arbitration takes rom the

commencement o the arbitral proceedings till the award is passed?*

Arbitration vs. Litigation Pros and Cons

#2

*Does not total up to 100% owing to

a multiple responses provided by respondents.

b 9% o respondents did not provide an answer to this question.


10/24

10 PwC

Other concerns that result in litigation being aless preferred choice include:

rigid framework that litigation operatesin, and

lack of condentiality surrounding theproceedings.

Companies that had experience in alternateforms of dispute resolution (other thanarbitration) admitted doing so in accordancewith their organisational policy, particularlywith respect to disputes relating to low valuecontracts where arbitration would not be a costeffective option. Alternatively, they continued

to follow traditional litigation for previouslyexecuted contracts that did not provide forarbitration in the event of dispute.

Although majority of the companies opted forarbitration (95%) due to various benets, notall had a satisfactory experience:

The level of dissatisfaction is substantial forarbitrations seated in India as compared toarbitration seated outside India.

What was the reason your company preerred arbitration over some other dispute resolution

mechanism?

Are you satisfed with arbitration (seat in

India) as mechanism to resolve disputes?

Are you satisfed with arbitration (seat outside

India) as mechanism to resolve disputes?

Satisfed

Dissatisfed

Mixed experience

Satisfed

Dissatisfed

Mixed experience


11/24


Based on qualitative feedback, the level ofdissatisfaction may be attributed to the followingroadblocks that hinder an efcient arbitrationprocess in India:

Lack of uniformity in the procedures andtreatment of arbitral awards has beenan acute problem for parties adoptingarbitration to resolve disputes. However,the recent Supreme Court judgement in theBharat Aluminium2 case may be a breather forarbitrations seated outside India.

The arbitration award should be bindingwithout recourse to challenge irrespective ofthe seat of arbitration. There is an immediate

need for tightening of grounds to challengean award in India. Making an appeal againnot only escalates the cost and time ofarbitration proceeding but also makes thearbitration proceeding similar to litigation.

As there is no prescribed time limit withinwhich the arbitration proceeding mustbe completed, it makes arbitration a lessattractive mechanism for dispute resolution.9% of the companies experienced arbitration

that lasted more than three (3) years. Asobserved from the qualitative responses,duration of more than three years forresolving disputes through arbitration was

a tedious and expensive proposition for theparties.

Constitution of the arbitral tribunal is a timeconsuming activity and was ranked as thetop factor that has a bearing on the lengthof the arbitration proceedings, followedby exchange of pleadings, discovery andinspection of documents and enforcementof award.

The time and cost of the proceedings is also

affected signicantly when the decientparties take advantage of the loopholes inthe procedures and the proceedings lack therequisite level of professionalism.

Arbitrators fee was among the top threefactors that companies attributed to the costof the arbitral proceedings. Other factorsincluded solicitors/law rms' and counselsprofessional fees.

In case of ad-hoc arbitration in India, thereis a small club of seasoned arbitrators thatcompanies can choose from. This causesa delay in the arbitration process due to

lack of availability of such arbitrators. Suchadministrative hurdles increase the cost of thproceedings signicantly, making it a moreexpensive proposition as against litigation.

2. http://supremecourtofndia.nic.in/outtoday/ac701905p.pd

The level of dissatisfaction is

substantial for arbitrationsseated in India


12/24

12 PwC

One of the reasons cited by the companies forchoosing arbitration over any other disputeresolution mechanism is exibility of theprocedure. This factor of exibility rests inadopting either ad-hoc or institutional arbitration.

Majority of the companies in India thatexperienced arbitration preferred ad-hoc (47%)over institutional arbitration (40%). Further,companies with no experience of arbitration also

indicated a preference for ad-hoc arbitration.

It is important to note that companies havingexperience in arbitration indicated constitutionof the tribunal as one of the top most reasonscontributing to the length of the arbitrationproceedings. One of the advantages of adoptinginstitutional arbitration is that it provides amechanism and time frame for selection of thetribunal. On the other hand the exibility offered byad-hoc arbitration may lead to a longer time frame

for constitution of tribunal and other administrativeprocedures. Greater exibility in procedures maynot necessarily produce greater efciency.

In developed countries, institutionalarbitration is a preferred type of arbitrationowing to presence of a variety of institutions,bespoke administration of the proceedingsoffered by such institutions, uniform rulesand procedures of the institute, absence ofinterference from the countrys legal system

and arbitration friendly infrastructureavailable in such countries.

Which o the ollowing types o arbitrations

does your company preer?

Ad-hoc arbitration

Institutional arbitration

Neutral

Ad-hoc vs. Institutional Arbitration- An Indian perspective

#3


13/24


Popularity of Arbitration Institutions

Singapore International Arbitration Centre(SIAC) and Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC),

Singapore, International Chamber of Commerce(ICC) and London Court of InternationalArbitration (LCIA), UK were widely optedto administer and resolve disputes. Whilechoosing an institution, following reasons have

Which o these arbitral institutions, i any has administered your companys arbitrations in the past?

been rated most signicant by companies havingexperience of institutional arbitration:

Overall cost and fees,

Reputation, and

Neutrality and independence of the institutio


14/24

14 PwC

While companies generally indicated a exibleapproach towards negotiating arbitrationclauses, they indicated that the seat ofarbitration3 (among other factors such aslaw governing the arbitration and languagefollowed in the proceedings) would primarilydrive the negotiation.

In international commercial arbitration, it is offoremost importance that parties to a dispute

agree on the seat of arbitration. Choosing a seatof arbitration is crucial for many reasons.

It plays a unique role in deciding the lawgoverning the arbitration procedure.

It determines the support or interventionthat may be received from local courts in thecourse of arbitration.

It also has a bearing on the process andrights relating to enforcement of thearbitration award.

Participants to this survey were asked to

indicate their preferred seat of arbitration

and the top factors that would inuencetheir choice. According to the responses,

regional advantage was ranked as the most

important consideration in selecting the seat of

arbitration, followed by cost effectiveness and

lastly, the advice of solicitors / counsel.

Consistent with the above results for factors

inuencing the choice of seat of arbitration,

respondents selectedIndia as the most

preferred destination for the obvious advantage

it offers companies in India; followed bySingapore which is emerging as a promising

arbitration hub and viewed by many as a cost

Seat of Arbitration Doesit really matter?

#4

Consequently, when drafting an arbitrationclause in a new contract, it is important toconsider myriad factors when deciding uponthe seat, particularly, how the local arbitrationlaw of the seat operates and whether the localcourts are arbitration-friendly.

effective and neutral venue in comparison to

London, Paris etc.; and lastly,England due to

its long standing reputation as an impartialjurisdiction and efciency of court proceedings.

Though India is a preferred choice as a seat of

arbitration, however in practice it is not.

The above results indicate that many in-house

counsels see the choice of seat as more a matter

of convenience than of legal signicance.

This further suggests that some do not fully

appreciate the signicance of choosing the right

seat for international arbitration. Also the

in-house legal departments might benet frombriengs by arbitration specialists on the legal

consequences and tactical opportunities arising

from the choice of seat.3. In international commercial arbitration legislation and practices,

the seat o arbitration usually reers to the place or arbitration,

where the award is made. The terms seat and the place o

arbitration are oten used interchangeably.

In-house counsels see thechoice of seat as more amatter of convenience than of

legal signicance


15/24


One of the primary advantages of arbitrationoften cited by companies is the ability to choosea decision maker with expertise to understandthe nature of the dispute and resolve iteffectively and efciently. In arbitration, partiescan mutually agree upon who will serve as theirarbitrator.

A tribunal that is proactive and skilledin resolution of disputes will contribute

tremendously to managing the arbitrationin the most cost and time effective manner.Because arbitrator selection is pivotal tothe quality and outcome of the proceeding,careful consideration should be given to howthe arbitrator will be selected, how many areneeded and their specic qualications.

Knowledge of the applicable law and priorexperience are desirable attributes of aninternational arbitrator. An arbitration

chairman (or presiding arbitrator) coupledwith two arbitrators who are specialists in the

applicable law / industry ideally constitutesa versatile and informed tribunal. Sucharbitrators are often appointed by respectiveparties to the dispute and the two arbitratorsjointly appoint the presiding arbitrator /chairman who can conduct the process with thenecessary authority and dignity. The use of asole arbitrator is also a concept that is graduallybeing accepted as a faster and cheaper option incomparison to a three member tribunal.

Companies highlighted various factorsthey take into consideration in appointingarbitrators. According to the results, companiesin India primarily look for arbitrators withan established reputation in the arbitrationcommunity along with relevant industry and/orregional expertise.

In case of arbitration seated in India, companieswith prior arbitration experience preferred toappoint:

Retired Supreme Court / High Court judges(68%),

Senior counsel (32%),

External experts (30%),

Solicitors / law rm partners (19%) and

Others (e.g. District Court judges) (2%).

Selection of Arbitrators Thedriving factors behind this decision

#5

Retired Supreme Court/

High Court judges arepreferred as arbitrators


16/24

16 PwC

Where the seat of arbitration is outside India,companies preferred:

External experts (39%),

Solicitors / law rm partners (19%), Senior counsel (23%), and

District Court judges and/orrecommendation from tribunal or groupcounsel (5%).

Currently nearly two-thirds opt for retiredSupreme Court or High Court judges asarbitrators, however, qualitative feedbackfrom the respondents reveals that, arbitrationproceedings in India are critically affected due tolack of availability of a large club of arbitratorswith requisite industry knowledge coupled withnecessary professional attitude.

To instil condence in the arbitration process,exibility of the arbitrator-selection shouldbe coupled with important standards forindependence / neutrality of the arbitrators.Consequently, by utilising a method that bestmeets their needs, parties to a business disputecan effectively choose an arbitrator who will hear

their case in an efcient and unbiased manner.

Seat outside India

Seat in India

Who amongst these is your companys preerred arbitrator? (Companies who

experienced arbitration)


17/24


Expert Witness is an individual who is

qualied, because of his or her specialised

knowledge, skill, training, education,

and/or experience to provide the court

(most often including the judge, opposing

counsel, and any jurors present) with

a specialised opinion about evidence or

about a particular fact at issue between

the parties.

Blacks Law Dictionar y

Nearly half the companies that resorted to arbitrationhave never used expert witnesses as part of thearbitration proceedings.

This is not surprising as very often, parties toa dispute prefer to use their own employees todetermine the quantum of damages / losses

suffered. Companies typically perceive suchemployees as best suited in this role, giventhat they possess intricate knowledge aboutthe company and are technically qualied inthe industry in which the company operates.

Additionally, such employees may have beeninvolved or are aware of the matter in disputeand are conversant with the facts at hand.

From the companys perspective, their uselimits the possibility of leakage of condentialinformation in the public domain, with regardto the case and results in cost saving.

How oten have you used expert evidence in domestic or international arbitrations?

Effective use of Experts -Choosing the right expert

#6


18/24

18 PwC

However, while employees may be procientin understanding the industry and areknowledgeable about the company, theymay lack the unique knack of presenting

evidence and providing testimony before theArbitral Tribunal as they are inexperienced inunderstanding and dealing with the arbitrationprocess. More importantly, employees lackindependence and objectivity of opinionand may not possess the requisite skill orcompetence to compute damages. Accordingly,employees are best suited as fact witnesses dueto their proximity to the issue.

On the other hand, expert witnesses can be

pivotal in strengthening a case that requiresfairly complex damage calculations or intricateunderstanding of a particular industry. Forinstance, cases that require the use of valuationmethodologies such as the Discounted CashFlow (DCF) method, internal rate of return etc.would benet from an expert who is well versedwith such techniques. Similarly, cases thatrevolve around interpretation and applicationof complex accounting principles as in the caseof revenue recognition contracts, valuation of

nancial instruments etc. would benet from

an expert who has substantial experience inthese elds. This can be collaborated withresponses of the companies who indicated thatthey typically used experts in matters relating

to valuations (25%), accounting (19%) andforeign law (12%); or industry specic expertsin the eld of nancial services, construction,engineering, oil and gas (41%).

Having said that, each case must be assessedon a stand-alone basis and an assessment ofwhether an expert is needed must be madeearly and in conjunction with the counsel.Experts retained early and for a denedobjective can add tremendous value to the

arbitral tribunal, counsel and client.Selection of the right expert is a battle half won.Companies with arbitration experience statedthe following top 4 considerations in selectingan expert:

1. Experience Seasoned experts posses deepexpertise in the respective eld along withthe requisite ability of presenting evidencebefore an arbitral tribunal. Thus, experienceshould undoubtedly be an important

criterion in selection of an expert.

2. Reputation Reputation of an expertwitness must necessarily be one of integrityand honesty. The conduct of the expertwitness before the tribunal can add

credibility or discredit a previously writtenreport. Among other aspects, an expertwitness reputation will be governed by his /her ability to present material and opinionsclearly and in a style that ts the arbitralsystem.

3. Prior relationship with Experts Whileprior relationship with the expert may lenda degree of comfort to the appointing party,it is important that the expert is viewed

by the tribunal as independent from thecounsel, client and facts of the case.

4. Cost Cost of retaining an expert should beviewed in light of potential benets to thecase at hand. Companies assigned equalimportance to their relationship with theexpert and cost considerations in retainingan expert.

Expert witnesses can help instrengthening a case that requires

complex damage calculation withunderstanding of the industry


19/24


Majority of the companies surveyed believethat the arbitration scenario in India looksoptimistic (43% have explicitly mentioned thatthe scenario of arbitration in India looks eitheroptimistic or very optimistic). Accordingly, ofthe companies with arbitration experience,82% indicated that they would continue touse arbitration in the case of future disputes.Further, of the remaining respondents with noexperience of arbitration, 46% were willing to

use arbitration in the future.

It has already been established that anoverwhelming majority of corporations inIndia are opting for arbitration closely followedby litigation. However, the dissatisfactionassociated with resolving disputes when seat ofarbitration is in India cannot be ignored.

In India, change is contemplated and the LawMinistry has proposed its recommendations

to amend the legislation. Domestic orinternational arbitration will be a sought after

option for companies in India with such positivesteps taken by the industry and the Governmenttogether. A qualitative analysis of the challengesfaced by companies and their learning fromthe arbitration process suggests following twocritical points that will contribute in shapingthe future of arbitration in India;

Need for a robust institutional arbitrationinfrastructure to overcome a signicant

challenge relating to selection andavailability of arbitrators and subsequenttime and cost of the proceedings; and

Realising the tactical benets of seat ofarbitration.

Future of Arbitration in India- Cautiously optimistic

#7

82% companies wouldcontinue to use arbitration

even in future disputes despitethe challenges


20/24

In-person interviews were conducted with 70 companies andtheir Legal Counsels, Legal Heads and other legal personnelto obtain their quantitative and qualitative feedback on thearbitration landscape.

Respondents Designation Count Percentage

General Counsel / Deputy General Counsel 32 46%

Other (Legal & Company Secretarial) 25 36%

Legal Ofcer 13 19%

Total 70 100%

No. of Countries that the Respondents comapny has

operations in

Count Percentage

More than 20 28 40%

2 to 10 21 30%

1 13 19%

11 to 20 8 11%

Total 70 100%

Nature of cross border activity that the company engages in (multiple

responses)

Count Percentage

Export o good/services to third parties 32 46%

Import o goods and services rom third parties 28 40%

Overseas branch/sales ofces 25 36%

Others (Joint Venture, Intellectual Property, Private Equity & Oshore

Advisors, Engineering, Advisory services, Distribution acilities,

Reinsurance, Shared Services etc.)

20 29%

Overseas manuacturing acilities 18 26%

Overseas fnancing 10 14%

Industry Sector (multiple responses) Count Percentage

Financial Services & Banking 16 23%

Inormation Technology 11 16%

Pharmaceuticals 10 14%

Construction / Engineering/Real estate 10 14%

Energy and Oil & Gas 8 11%

Manuacturing 6 9%

FMCG & Consumer durables 3 4%

Media & Entertainment 3 4%

Shipping/Maritime 2 3%

Telecommunications 2 3%

Retail & Consumer 2 3%Hospitality & Leisure 2 3%

Aerospace & Deence 2 3%

Transport & Logistics 2 3%

BPO & Shared Services 2 1%

Methodology


21/24


PwC would like to thank the various companies whoparticipated in this survey through their counsel andother legal representatives, as well as Sushma Nagaraj(Advocate) who offered her pro bono support towardsdrafting of the survey questionnaire.

The Editorial Team for this whitepaper consisted of the

following individuals:

Vidya RajaraoIndia Leader, Forensic Services, PwC

Darshan PatelExecutive Director, Forensic Services, PwC

Ankita ChawlaAssistant Manager, Forensic Services, PwC

Divya RishiAssociate, Marketing - Forensic Services, PwC

Particular thanks in compiling this guide are also due to the

following individuals at PwC:

Shrinil RupareliaAssistant Manager, Forensic Services

Poonam SanghaviAssociate, Forensic Services

Abhishek KakarBrand & Communications

Acknowledgement


22/24

No company enters into an agreement withanother entity expecting to become embroiled indisagreements. But disputes do happen. Complexdispute matters require the insight and experienceof individuals who understand how to interpretcompanies books, records and nancial documents.PwC professionals provide business and nancialadvice to lawyers and their clients in matters thatrepresent some form of crisis or dispute. Our workoften leads us to provide expert testimony before thearbitration panel or at the civil court. Our professionalshave deep experience in:

Quantication of damages

Expert witness testimony

Accounting and Statistical analysis

Delay claim analysis in construction disputes

Forensic technology (digital data collectionand analysis)

PwC Forensic Services provides a national and global

network of analysts, actuaries, accountants, fraudexaminers, and others who are leaders in their respectiveelds, offering a wide variety of skills to address the issuesaffecting parties. Our aim is to work in partnership withclients to implement fraud control methodologies, assistwhen incidents occur and to help with strategies andpractices to reduce the risk of falling victim to fraud. We areable to work discreetly and use a range of different skills toassist our clients with their needs. This approach includesthe use of experienced investigators, forensic accountants,computer forensic specialists and background researchers.

The team combines proven evidence gathering skills withcontrol methodologies to produce effective results for ourclients. Through our team of trained specialists we are alsoable to offer a complete computer forensic service as well astest and advise on a range of technical IT security issues.

PwC Dispute Analysis Services PwC Forensic Services


23/24


Vidya Rajarao

India Leader, Forensic ServicesTel: +91 (80) 4079 7002

[email protected]

Darshan Patel

Executive Director, Forensic ServicesTel: +91 (22) 6689 1670

[email protected]

Kunal R GuptaAssociate Director, Forensic ServicesTel: +91 (124) 330 6036

[email protected]

Sanganagouda Dhawalgi

Associate Director, Forensic ServicesTel: +91 (80) 4079 7023

[email protected]

Raman Narasimhan

Senior Manager, Forensic ServicesTel: +91 (44) 4228 5049

[email protected]

PwC* helps organisations and individuals create the value

theyre looking for. Were a network of rms in 158 countrieswith more than 180,000 people who are committed to

delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services.

PwC India refers to the network of PwC rms in India,

having ofces in: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi

NCR, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune. For more

information about PwC Indias service offerings, please visit

www.pwc.in.

*PwC refers to PwC India and may sometimes refer to the

PwC network. Each member rm is a separate legal entity.

Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

You can connect with us on:

facebook.com/PwCIndia

twitter.com/PwC_IN

linkedin.com/company/pwc-india

youtube.com/pwc

About PwC

Contacts


24/24

www.pwc.in

This publication has been prepared or general guidance on matters o interest only, and does not constitute proessional advice. You should not act

upon the inormation contained in this publication without obtaining specifc proessional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is

given as to the accuracy or completeness o the inormation contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwCPL, its members,

employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, or the consequences o you or anyone else acting, or reraining to act, in

reliance on the inormation contained in this publication or or any decision based on it. Without prior permission o PwCPL, this publication may not be

quoted in whole or in part or otherwise reerred to in any documents.

2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. All rights reserved. In this document, PwC reers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a

limited liability company in India), which is a member frm o PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL), each member frm o which is a

separate legal entity.

AK492- May 2013 Corporate Attitudes & Practices.indd

Designed by: PwC Brand and Communications, India

corporate attributes and practices towards arbitration in india

Documents