Interviews
#10QuestionswithMaxwell Interview Series: Shaneen Parikh, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
Shaneen Parikh is the Partner & Head of International Arbitration at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas in Mumbai, where she leads the firm’s arbitration practice. She is a dual-qualified solicitor with over three decades of experience handling complex domestic and international disputes, often with cross-border elements, across a wide range of sectors including commercial contracts, post-M&A issues, financial products, infrastructure, construction and intellectual property. Her expertise spans institutional and ad hoc arbitrations, investor-state matters, and high-stakes commercial litigation before Indian courts such as High Courts, the Supreme Court and NCLT.
Shaneen regularly advises on dispute resolution strategy and represents clients in multi-forum and multi-jurisdictional matters, including precedent-setting cases involving securities fraud, derivatives and enforcement of foreign awards. She has acted for Indian and international banks, corporate shareholders, private equity investors and complex commercial entities.
She holds key leadership and industry roles, including on the Governing Board of ICCA, Vice Chair of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (term through 2027), and council member of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA). She formerly served on the SIAC Court of Arbitration and contributed to drafting institutional arbitration rules for India’s GIFT International Arbitration Centre.
Shaneen is recognised globally for her arbitration work, ranked as a “Thought Leader” and “Most Highly Regarded” practitioner by Who’s Who Legal, Lawyer of the Year (Arbitration) by The Legal 500, and featured by Chambers & Partners, Benchmark Litigation and other legal directories. She is also a published author and frequent speaker on arbitration and dispute resolution topics.
Beyond her legal practice, she contributes to social impact as a board member of Magic Bus, supporting youth development and empowerment.
Read the full interview below:
Q: What initially drew you to dispute resolution, and what helped you decide to specialize in international arbitration?
I am an accidental lawyer – enrolling in law because it gave me another three years to decide what to do (if not a professional dancer). It was only during my clerkship (for the solicitor’s exam), when I started attending court, that I was captivated by the theatre of advocacy. I particularly enjoyed arbitration, because it gave me the opportunity of seeing a dispute from start to finish, of learning the art of cross-examination, all in a less formal yet efficient framework.
International arbitration then offered the nuance of and learnings from different legal systems, legal cultures and generally more complex cross-border transactions and disputes. What sealed the deal was my first exposure to an international arbitration hearing – watching counsel from different legal traditions navigate procedural and substantive issues, in ways that were both familiar, yet new to me as a newbie. The decision to specialize was an inevitable gravitational pull – which I still feel, and I find it incredibly exciting even today.
Q: From your experience in complex disputes, which aspects of arbitration practice tend to receive less attention but are just as important to case outcomes?
The unglamorous truth is that case outcomes can hinge on elements that don’t make it into textbooks or conference panels. Document management, for instance—the ability to organize, retrieve, and deploy evidence efficiently can make or break a case – particularly if one is cross-examining a wiley witness. Another under-hyped aspect is the part procedural matters can be used in your overall dispute strategy. Finally, the relationship with opposing counsel, not just the arbitral tribunal, is incredibly important, and can translate to goodwill and cooperation – not to be undervalued. Every aspect can influence a case outcome, giving one an edge, or the blunt end of the stick.
Q: Technology and AI are now part of the day-to-day reality in arbitration practices, from evidence management to hearing formats. What technological changes have genuinely improved how disputes are handled, and what do you think practitioners should be mindful of to ensure technology supports, rather than distracts from effective dispute resolution?
There is no doubt that technology is a blessing by helping to improve efficiency and thus reducing costs, and therefore also somewhat equalizing the playing field for smaller businesses and legal teams. It is not, however, carte blanche for blind reliance. I have seen first-hand, hallucinations by AI of case law – exactly on the point I wanted to argue (AI wanted to please me!), and analyses of judgments that mistakenly took one party’s arguments, as the ruling. The devil lies in detail, so check and double-check the actual source. Technology is an assistant and a tool; it is never a substitute for original verification and judgment, which continues to have a human premium. My advice: embrace technology enthusiastically, but deploy it judiciously, or it can disrupt if not defeat, effective dispute resolution.
Q: How would you describe the current arbitration landscape in India? How do you see it developing over the next few years, and what reform, if any, would you consider important for strengthening the arbitral system?
India’s arbitration landscape has matured. Legislative reforms in 2015 and 2019, signalled a pro-arbitration stance, with Courts becoming conscious of ensuring effective arbitration and enforcement of awards. While there may be some aberrations, they are few and far between. Even with ad hoc arbitration (which is still the norm for many domestic disputes), one sees the emergence of a more global practice (particularly with experienced arbitrators and counsel).
That said, there has been some backlash against arbitration from some government ministries, in view of certain adverse awards, as a result of which, they have backtracked towards to court litigation. I view this as regressive and a dismissal of the benefits that arbitration has to offer. I am hopeful that the tide will turn once more to arbitration as a robust and more efficient process, even for public sector undertakings.
I don’t think much further “reform” is required – India’s arbitration regime is based on UNCITRAL Model Law and is similar to many common law systems (including Singapore and the UK, both of which are popular). The biggest need is management of the inefficiencies in the judicial system, which percolate into applications in support of the arbitral process, challenges and enforcement of awards. Delays are notorious and possibly the biggest challenge to India being a favoured arbitration destination (the hope of India’s incumbent Government).
I’d advocate for specialized and permanent arbitration benches in courts, experienced judges, continued judicial training on arbitration principles – particularly cross-border issues, and a clear cultural shift towards a more global arbitration practice, as a sophisticated, preferred mechanism for commercial dispute resolution. Critically, I advocate for a strict application of actual costs following the event – the loser pays principle being unevenly enforced, and imposition of costs for frivolous applications and adjournments.
Q: How has the role of advocates in international arbitrations evolved over the past decade, particularly in India?
Particularly for those advocates who are engaging in international arbitration on a regular basis, I would put them on par with their international contemporaries. Many Indian senior counsel have joined English barrister sets, and many law firm partners conduct their own advocacy, as also act as arbitrators, none of which would have been common a decade ago.
Q: Drawing from your experience practicing in India, how has the landscape for women practitioners in international arbitration changed over the years, and what reflections or practical advice would you share for women navigating and progressing in this space today?
When I started, women in arbitration, let alone international arbitration, were rare enough to be notable. Today, we’re seeing more women as counsel, arbitrators, and in leadership positions at law firms and arbitral institutions. However, representation as senior counsel, partners and arbitrators, still lags behind. Arbitral institutions are conscious of reducing this divide, and institutional appointments are often the first for many women arbitrators (who are not retired judges).
My practical advice would be threefold: (1) love your work and be good at it – competence is an effective tool; (2) be visible and try your own advocacy (if He can do it, why cant SHE?); (3) easier said than done – I still find this incredibly difficult, don’t wait to be invited to the table; sometimes you need to pull up your own chair – with a smile!
Q: What notable global trends have you observed in international arbitration, and how do you think these trends are impacting arbitration practices, particularly in our region?
The mantra for “efficiency” grows louder and is coupled with the use of technology and AI – by counsel – when it must be checked, and increasingly by tribunals, when it should be notified to the parties.
In the Indian conspectus particularly, we see pushback by the Government against investor-state arbitration and a clear focus on the insistence of exhaustion of local remedies (in Indian courts), for three to five years, before arbitration can be invoked. Along with this trend, comes a somewhat concerning increase in anti-arbitration injunctions – albeit that such orders are passed on a clear finding that the arbitration may be oppressive or vexatious.
Third-party funding is a recurring conversation with Indian clients, which shows they grow more sophisticated in the use of legal tools and strategy. For the moment at least, owing to lengthy court proceedings, funders are interested largely in cases where the seat and recovery, is offshore, thus obviating the need to approach Indian courts for reliefs.
Q: What has been the most rewarding aspect of your career, and what keeps you motivated?
What is most rewarding is the intellectual aspect – no two disputes are alike, and even if facts or points of law are similar, there is a distinguishing nuance and an opportunity to learn something new each time: whether it’s about an industry, a legal system, or human nature. I still get a kick out of devising a novel argument or strategy, and the satisfaction of a job well done and a happy client. But beyond that, it’s the privilege of working with brilliant colleagues and clients, and the constant evolution of the field. All these aspects are motivators, and of course, the pièce de résistance is a comprehensive win!
Q: If you weren’t in your current profession, what profession would you be in?
I’d be a jazz and salsa dancer.
Q: To get to know you more on a personal level, tell us 3 fun/interesting facts about yourself.
- I was jazz and salsa dancer – I say I still am, but just on a sabbatical.
- I competed nationally in show-jumping, dressage and polo (I’m also on a sabbatical from horse-riding)
- I don’t like to take myself too seriously.
From left to right:
- Shaneen performing on stage at a salsa congress
- Shaneen’s race win on her horse, Samarche
