Harshavardhan Sancheti

• HKIAC handled 503 new cases in 2024 (97.1% seated in Hong Kong); banking and financial disputes are among the highest-value categories on the HKIAC docket
• Crypto and digital asset disputes drove a sharp increase in banking-related HKIAC cases from 2021 to 2022; courts recognise cryptocurrency as property capable of trust
• Greater China financial disputes: Mainland China bank lending, offshore RMB bond defaults, dim sum bond disputes and cross-border PRC-related financial conflicts
• Strong enforcement of HKIAC awards in Mainland China via the 1999 Arrangement; awards also enforceable in 172 New York Convention signatory states
• HKIAC 2024 Rules introduce refined provisions on emergency arbitrators, consolidation and joinder particularly relevant for multi-party syndicated loan disputes

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s grounding in international arbitration procedure including multi-party and complex financial disputes through his LLM training and practice at Three Crowns LLP and Dechert LLP positions him to handle the procedural complexity that HKIAC banking arbitrations demand, from consolidation of related syndicated loan claims to emergency arbitrator applications in time-sensitive financial disputes. His knowledge of English governing law, which underpins most Hong Kong-seated financial arbitrations, further strengthens his suitability as a neutral tribunal member.

• Proceedings under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (amended 2019/2021) including institutional and ad hoc arbitration
• Gas price disputes: ONGC, Reliance Industries KG-D6 and NELP/OALP block Production Sharing Contracts
• Renewable energy PPA disputes: Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) procurement contracts
• India-Mauritius BIT and UNCITRAL investor-state arbitration in the energy sector

Admitted to the Bar in India and already appointed as an arbitrator in proceedings in India, the United Kingdom and the United States, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings a verified arbitration track record across his primary jurisdictions. His ICSID and UNCITRAL investor-state experience including representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings against Croatia arising from energy licence revocations and regulatory measures, conducted through Dechert LLP directly mirrors the PSC, BIT and UNCITRAL investor-state proceedings that arise in the Indian energy sector. His Bar admission in India means parties can engage him with confidence that he understands the domestic regulatory architecture alongside the international arbitration framework.

• Hong Kong is China’s designated regional IP trading centre and international innovation and technology hub under the 14th Five-Year Plan; HKIAC 2024 Rules with enhanced consolidation and joinder provisions are well-suited to complex China-foreign technology licensing disputes
• Greater China technology licensing: disputes between Mainland Chinese technology companies and their international licensors and licensees covering source code, know-how, trade secret and patent licence scope are increasingly arbitrated in Hong Kong under HKIAC Rules with enforcement via the 1999 Arrangement
• ADNDRC domain name proceedings: the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), with offices in Hong Kong, Beijing and Seoul, handles UDRP-equivalent proceedings for .asia, .hk and regional ccTLD domain name disputes involving Chinese and Asian brand owners
• Semiconductor and hardware disputes: disputes involving Chinese chip manufacturers, Taiwanese ODMs and international technology companies over patent licensing, IP ownership in chip design and technology transfer agreement breaches
• Chinese AI and platform disputes: the rapid growth of Chinese generative AI platforms is generating copyright, data licensing and technology transfer disputes that Hong Kong-seated HKIAC arbitration is well-placed to resolve for parties seeking enforcement in Mainland China

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s service as Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank Group an institution with a substantial and growing technology-related caseload, with information and communications technology disputes now representing approximately 10% of ICSID proceedings and his experience representing Fortune 500 technology companies in high-stakes proceedings, including ICDR and IRP proceedings for Amazon.com and Afilias LLC in domain name and internet governance disputes, demonstrate the scale and institutional depth that Hong Kong-seated technology arbitrations involving Chinese state-linked parties and global technology investors demand. His ICC Paris training and familiarity with the enforcement architecture of the 1999 Arrangement complete the picture.

• Germany is the largest European market for technology and IP arbitration: automotive software, industrial IoT, SEP/FRAND telecommunications disputes, pharmaceutical patent licensing and AI-driven manufacturing platform conflicts generate the highest European volume outside London
• Unified Patent Court (UPC): the UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) in Luxembourg and Lisbon provides a new institutional framework for European patent licensing disputes; the UPC entered operational phase in 2023 and its PMAC is growing in SEP/FRAND and patent arbitration caseload
• Automotive SEP disputes: Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, InterDigital and other SEP holders are actively pursuing German automotive manufacturers in both UPC proceedings and parallel WIPO/ICC arbitrations for 5G and connected vehicle standard licensing
• EU AI Act and data disputes: the EU AI Act (in force August 2024) is generating compliance liability disputes in AI supply chains; DIS and ICC arbitration under German law is the primary forum for German-international technology disputes arising from EU AI Act obligations
• Cross-border technology JV disputes: German industrial partners in global manufacturing, pharmaceutical and technology JVs generate IP ownership, know-how transfer and licence scope conflicts under DIS and ICC Rules

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct case experience at Dechert LLP in a USD 135 million domain name arbitration for Afilias LLC involving contested rights over the .WEB top-level domain in a high-value technology governance dispute and his experience in complex IP and technology governance proceedings for major global technology companies provides directly transferable expertise for the IP ownership, SEP/FRAND and technology licensing conflicts that define Germany’s technology arbitration market. Trained in ICC arbitration at ICC Paris, the institution most frequently chosen alongside DIS and the UPC PMAC for high-value German-international technology disputes with non-German counterparties, he brings procedural fluency and substantive IP dispute experience to Germany-seated and EU-governed technology arbitrations.

• India is the world’s largest IT and software outsourcing market; disputes between Indian IT service providers and their international clients covering software development failures, ERP implementation disputes and managed service agreement breaches generate significant MCIA and SIAC arbitration volume
• IP ownership disputes: disputes arising from work performed by Indian engineers and developers on IP ownership, assignment validity and non-compete enforcement are structurally endemic in the Indian technology sector
• Domain name proceedings: the National Internet Exchange of India (.IN registry) administers domain name dispute resolution for .IN ccTLD disputes; Harshavardhan Sancheti has been appointed as arbitrator by NIXI in .IN domain name proceedings
• Startup and venture capital disputes: India’s startup ecosystem generates earn-out, IP warranty, convertible instrument and governance disputes in technology M&A transactions that require sophisticated IP and technology arbitration expertise
• GIFT IFSC: developing as a neutral international seat for India-related technology and IP disputes involving foreign investors and cross-border licensing agreements

Harshavardhan Sancheti has been appointed as arbitrator by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) in .IN domain name disputes establishing him as a trusted decision-maker in Indian technology arbitration proceedings with direct institutional recognition from India’s internet governance body. This appointment, combined with his admitted status as an advocate in India and his case-level experience in domain name arbitration at Dechert LLP, gives him a combination of institutional recognition and practical domain name expertise that is directly applicable to the Indian technology arbitration market. His India bar admission and familiarity with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended provide the procedural foundation for MCIA and ICA technology proceedings.

• Singapore is Asia-Pacific’s leading technology arbitration hub; SIAC recorded 625 new case filings in 2024, with technology, fintech and digital platform disputes among the fastest-growing categories
• SIAC 2025 Rules introduced enhanced multi-party consolidation and emergency arbitrator provisions within 24 hours critical for technology disputes requiring urgent interim relief to prevent data exfiltration or IP misappropriation
• ASEAN technology JV and licensing disputes: disputes between Chinese, Indian, Korean and ASEAN parties in fintech, e-commerce, digital health and semiconductor manufacturing JVs increasingly seated in Singapore
• AI and data disputes: the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has published guidelines identifying SIAC as the preferred Asian arbitral institution for AI-related IP disputes requiring confidential expert-driven resolution
• Southeast Asia platform disputes: disputes between global technology platforms and ASEAN market participants content moderation liability, algorithm-driven commercial claims and marketplace access conflicts are increasingly arbitrated under SIAC Rules

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s record of representing Fortune 500 companies including major global corporations in proceedings across Singapore, London, Geneva and Washington D.C. in disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion in aggregate, his ICC Paris arbitration training and his membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) provide the institutional credibility and scale of experience that complex Singapore-seated technology and IP arbitrations require. His cross-border practice covering US, UK, Indian and Asian parties mirrors precisely the multinational party profile of SIAC technology disputes, where the same transaction may involve a US technology licensor, an Indian IT services provider and a Southeast Asian platform operator.

• The United States is the world’s largest technology arbitration market: Silicon Valley, New York, Boston and Austin generate the highest volume of SaaS, IP licensing, software development and platform dispute arbitrations globally
• ICDR and JAMS are the primary US institutions for domestic and cross-border technology disputes; WIPO arbitration increasingly used for patent licensing and SEP/FRAND proceedings where US technology companies are parties
• US patent licensing arbitration: inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the USPTO interact with contractual arbitration clauses in technology licensing agreements; careful coordination of parallel proceedings is essential
• UDRP and URS domain name proceedings: the United States generates the largest volume of complainants in WIPO UDRP proceedings globally, with trademark-abusive domain registrations targeting US brands
• ICANN IRP and new gTLD disputes

At Dechert LLP, Harshavardhan Sancheti represented Amazon.com in an ICDR Independent Review Process against ICANN over the .AMAZON top-level internet domain a proceeding that sits at the precise intersection of US technology governance, global trademark rights and institutional arbitration procedure. At the same firm, he represented Afilias LLC in a USD 135 million domain name arbitration over the .WEB gTLD. These are not general commercial disputes with a technology dimension, they are specialist proceedings at the frontier of internet governance law and his direct case-level experience in both makes him one of a very small number of arbitrators with first-hand knowledge of ICANN IRP procedure and high-value domain name arbitration. Combined with his ICC Paris arbitration training and New York bar admission, this makes him a particularly compelling appointment for US-seated technology and domain name arbitrations.

• London is the primary European seat for high-value international technology and IP licensing arbitrations; English law governs the majority of cross-border technology licences, SaaS agreements and software development contracts globally
• LCIA and ICC are the institutions most frequently chosen for technology disputes under English law; the Arbitration Act 2025 enhances summary disposal powers, directly valuable for technology disputes where liability on a specific licence breach or domain name claim can be determined without a full hearing
• SEP/FRAND arbitration: the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] confirmed UK courts can set global FRAND rates; English-law WIPO arbitration increasingly used by SEP holders seeking binding confidential alternatives to patent litigation in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously
• AI and data disputes: the UK’s AI Safety Act 2025 and the Copyright and AI white paper are generating new disputes between AI developers, content owners and platform operators that English-law arbitration is well-positioned to resolve
• Fintech and digital platform disputes: London’s position as Europe’s largest fintech hub generates high-value SaaS, payment system licensing and platform access arbitrations under LCIA and ICC Rules

Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales giving him direct standing in English-law technology proceedings and trained in ICC arbitration procedure at ICC Paris. His experience at Wiley Rein LLP included advising a leading renewable energy company in a technology-related commercial dispute with a Korean energy corporation, demonstrating cross-border technology dispute exposure in an energy sector context. His familiarity with the LCIA’s speed and confidentiality framework, combined with his English law qualification and ICC Paris training, makes him a well-grounded appointment for London-seated technology licensing, SaaS and AI dispute proceedings.

• Germany is the largest European construction arbitration market DIS administers construction disputes under VOB/B (the German construction contract standard) alongside bespoke EPC contracts for industrial and energy projects
• German Energiewende disputes: onshore wind, solar PV, offshore Baltic Sea and green hydrogen infrastructure generating a new wave of construction and infrastructure arbitrations
• EU Critical Raw Materials Act compliance disputes: mining and processing infrastructure projects in Germany and Eastern Europe with cross-border contractor and investor involvement
• Cross-border Central European infrastructure JVs: German industrial partners in Polish, Czech, Slovak and Hungarian transport, energy and manufacturing projects
• ICC arbitration commonly chosen alongside DIS for German-international construction disputes particularly where non-German contractors or multilateral funders are involved

Trained in ICC arbitration at ICC Paris, the institution most frequently chosen for high-value German construction disputes involving international parties, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings procedural fluency to ICC-seated proceedings under German law. His substantive experience in construction JV disputes, including disputes where multi-party contractual structures and state-linked employer dynamics are in play, translates directly to the German construction market where Energiewende infrastructure projects and cross-border industrial JVs are generating the most complex and commercially significant arbitrations. His cross-border practice across common and civil law systems makes him a well-suited neutral for disputes where German substantive law and international arbitration procedure intersect.

• Australia is a major construction arbitration jurisdiction energy transition infrastructure (offshore wind, solar, battery storage) and mining construction projects generate significant arbitration volume
• Australian Standard forms (AS 4000 and AS 4902) and FIDIC contracts govern major Australian construction projects; ACICA and SIAC are the preferred institutions for international disputes
• LNG construction disputes: Australia is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters delays, cost overruns and completion certificate disputes on LNG facility projects are among the highest-value construction arbitrations globally
• Mining infrastructure construction: Pilbara iron ore, Queensland coal and Western Australia critical minerals processing plant disputes under ACICA and ICC rules
• Offshore energy construction: Australia’s offshore wind ambition and FPSO contract disputes are generating a new wave of construction arbitration as the sector develops
• Security of Payment (SOP) statutory adjudication heavily interacts with final arbitration clauses in Australia; the landmark April 2026 overhauls to Victoria’s SOP Act have completely abolished the “excluded amounts” regime, blowing the doors open by allowing disputed variations, latent conditions and delay damages to be adjudicated instantly rather than forcing parties straight into protracted final arbitration.

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s cross-sector construction and energy infrastructure experience spanning a multi-billion-dollar ICC construction JV dispute, EPC energy infrastructure proceedings and investment treaty claims involving sovereign interference with project assets covers precisely the matrix of claims that Australian LNG, mining infrastructure and offshore energy projects generate. His ICC Paris training and CIArb membership provide the procedural credentials that ACICA and SIAC-seated Australian construction arbitrations expect from a specialist arbitrator and his familiarity with the investment treaty layer above major resource infrastructure disputes is an additional practical asset.

• New York and Houston are the primary US seats for large-scale construction and energy infrastructure arbitrations AAA-ICDR is the dominant institution for US-international construction disputes
• US construction disputes under AIA A201, ConsensusDocs and bespoke EPC contracts for LNG terminals, power plants, data centres and transport infrastructure
• Federal energy infrastructure disputes: LNG export terminal construction, Gulf of Mexico offshore platform installation and FERC-regulated pipeline construction claims
• US private-public partnership (P3) infrastructure disputes: highway, transit and port projects under DBFOM structures with state and federal government counterparties
• US energy transition infrastructure: offshore wind foundation installation, solar farm EPC, battery storage facility construction and hydrogen production plant disputes

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s experience through Three Crowns LLP in advising on successful resolution of a USD 760 million manufacturing facility dispute demonstrates his command of the commercial pressure points completion risk, performance liability and contractual recovery that determine outcomes in large US construction and industrial infrastructure arbitrations. Admitted to the Bar in New York and the District of Columbia and with direct ICDR proceedings experience from his time at Dechert LLP, he brings both the jurisdictional standing and the institutional familiarity that US-seated construction arbitrations require.

• India’s infrastructure ambition USD 1.4 trillion National Infrastructure Pipeline is generating significant arbitration volume across roads, railways, ports, airports and energy projects
• MCIA and ICA appointments accepted; the Indian Supreme Court has firmly reinforced minimal court intervention in international commercial arbitration since 2024
• NITI Aayog’s model construction contract and MoRTH standard bidding documents govern the majority of government infrastructure projects specialized contract knowledge is essential
• Disputes involving NHAI, NHIDCL, AAI, RITES and other government infrastructure procuring entities are subject to the specific arbitration clauses in Indian standard form contracts
• GIFT IFSC developing as a neutral international seat for India-related construction and infrastructure disputes involving foreign investors and multilateral development bank funding

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s substantive ICSID and UNCITRAL investor-state experience representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in proceedings where a state revoked licences, imposed regulatory measures and initiated criminal proceedings against company executives directly mirrors the most severe category of Indian infrastructure disputes, those where government action disrupts or defeats the commercial foundation of the project. That depth of investor-state experience, combined with his Indian Bar admission and existing appointments as arbitrator in Indian proceedings, makes him uniquely positioned to handle the full spectrum of Indian construction and infrastructure arbitrations.

• Singapore is the primary Asia-Pacific hub for international construction arbitration SIAC’s 2025 Rules introduced enhanced multi-party consolidation and emergency arbitrator provisions critical for complex construction disputes
• Major infrastructure projects across ASEAN, transport, energy, telecoms and data centre construction generate disputes increasingly seated in Singapore under SIAC and ICC rules
• FIDIC Red Book and bespoke EPC contracts under Singapore and English law are the dominant frameworks for Southeast Asian construction disputes
• Chinese contractors on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects are increasingly pursuing construction and investment treaty claims earlier, reflecting a more sophisticated approach to cross-border dispute management
• Singapore courts have developed robust jurisprudence on DAB enforcement, performance bond calls and provisional payment under SIAC-seated construction arbitrations since 2022

As a Former Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), World Bank Group and as Tribunal Secretary to Prof. Jan Paulsson in ICSID proceedings, Harshavardhan Sancheti has institutional knowledge of the investment treaty dimension of infrastructure disputes, the layer of BIT protection that now regularly sits above the contractual claims in major ASEAN infrastructure projects involving sovereign or state-linked employers. That investor-state expertise, combined with his CIArb membership and his experience representing Fortune 500 companies in proceedings across Singapore, makes him a procedurally complete and commercially informed choice for Singapore-seated construction arbitrations.

• The UAE construction market was valued at USD 101 billion in 2019 and is projected to reach USD 133 billion by 2028 generating some of the highest-value construction arbitrations globally
• DIAC Rules 2022 and ICC are the preferred institutions for MENA construction disputes; Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed in November 2024 that ICC Rules allow recovery of legal costs in arbitration
• NEOM, Saudi Vision 2030 and UAE clean energy infrastructure projects generating significant EPC delay, variation and performance disputes under FIDIC Silver Book contracts
• Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) achieved 65% average annual caseload growth over four years growing rapidly as a seat for Saudi construction and infrastructure disputes
• Multi-jurisdictional challenges: MENA construction projects involve foreign investors, international contractors, offshore suppliers and multi-tiered contracts across several governing laws simultaneously

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s professional experience through Three Crowns LLP in parallel investment and commercial ICC arbitration proceedings involving a major international oil company and a sovereign state where energy infrastructure assets, regulatory measures and sovereign tax claims were simultaneously in dispute gives him a substantive understanding of the state-counterparty dynamics and multi-layered contractual structures that define the largest MENA construction and infrastructure arbitrations. His ICC Paris training and England and Wales admission as a Solicitor underpin the two most frequently chosen frameworks for DIAC and ICC-seated Gulf construction disputes.

• London remains the preferred choice as a global seat for high-value international cross-border construction arbitrations English law governs FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Book contracts on the majority of cross-border infrastructure projects
• ICC and LCIA are the institutions most commonly chosen for major construction disputes; English Commercial Court provides authoritative supervisory jurisdiction and effective interim relief
• New UK Arbitration Act 2025 enhances summary disposal a significant practical improvement for construction disputes where liability on individual delay or variation claims can be determined without a full hearing
• North Sea offshore, nuclear, rail and road infrastructure disputes under JCT, NEC and bespoke EPC contracts are most frequently seated in London under English law
• FIDIC DAB/DAAB enforcement: English courts are the leading jurisdiction for enforcement of dispute adjudication board decisions pending final arbitral resolution

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct experience as counsel in a multi-billion-dollar ICC construction arbitration representing a New York-based developer in a complex dispute against a Korean construction major gives him a practitioner’s firsthand understanding of how large-scale ICC construction proceedings are managed, from the Terms of Reference through to expert evidence on delay and quantum. Having trained in ICC arbitration procedure at ICC Paris and admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales, he brings the precise institutional and substantive knowledge that London-seated FIDIC and EPC arbitrations demand from a construction dispute arbitrator.

• GCC sovereign commercial disputes: state enterprise contract arbitrations, joint venture disputes involving sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises, and regulatory measures affecting foreign investors in energy, real estate and infrastructure sectors
• UAE BIT framework: the UAE has concluded BITs with over 60 states, providing FET, expropriation and national treatment protections; DIAC 2022 and DIFC-LCIA arbitration used for investment and commercial sovereign disputes
• Saudi Arabia investment arbitration: Saudi Arabia’s accession to the ICSID Convention in 2023 opens a new front for investor-state claims; SAGIA and MISA regulatory disputes, NEOM-related disputes and Vision 2030 infrastructure investment conflicts generating investment treaty exposure
• Qatar and Kuwait: sovereign wealth fund investment disputes; state enterprise commercial arbitrations; BIT claims arising from measures affecting energy, banking and infrastructure investments by foreign investors
• MENA energy transition: renewable energy project disputes, sovereign measures affecting solar and wind PPA investments, and state interference with critical minerals supply chain investments generating BIT FET and expropriation claims

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s ICC Paris arbitration training at the institution most frequently chosen alongside DIAC for complex cross-border Gulf sovereign disputes and his career experience representing large oil corporations in parallel investment and commercial proceedings provide the institutional and substantive foundation that Middle Eastern investment treaty arbitrations require. His familiarity with DIAC 2022 Rules, his admitted status in New York, D.C. and England and Wales and his CIArb membership give him the multilateral procedural competence that disputes involving Gulf sovereign parties, GCC state enterprises and MENA bilateral investment treaties demand.

• India has been among the most active investment treaty respondent states over the past decade, with investment treaty claims arising from retrospective tax measures (Vodafone, Cairn Energy), energy sector licence revocations, telecommunications regulation and infrastructure concession disputes
• Cairn Energy v. India (PCA, USD 1.2 billion): among the most significant investor-state awards involving India, arising from retrospective capital gains tax measures applied to a corporate restructuring; enforced in multiple jurisdictions
• India’s evolving treaty framework: India has terminated over 60 BITs since 2016 following adverse awards and replaced them with a restrictive Model BIT 2016; remaining treaties and FTAs (CEPA with UAE, ECTA with Australia) continue to generate investment treaty exposure
• National treatment and FET claims: arising from discriminatory regulatory measures in the pharmaceutical, technology, energy and infrastructure sectors affecting foreign investors under India’s remaining investment treaty network
• India-seated investment arbitration: MCIA Rules increasingly used for domestic investment disputes; Indian courts’ evolving jurisprudence on seat, enforcement and challenge of investment awards.

Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as an advocate in India and holds a direct connection to Indian legal practice that few international arbitrators with his level of ICSID and investor-state experience can match. At Dechert LLP, he advised an Indian company on potential ICSID annulment proceedings a specific and technically demanding form of investment treaty work that requires understanding of the ICSID Convention’s self-contained review mechanism. Combined with his India bar admission, his ICSID consultancy at the World Bank Group and his ICC Paris arbitration training, this positions him as a particularly well-suited arbitrator for India-respondent investment treaty proceedings, India-seated UNCITRAL arbitrations and disputes under India’s remaining BIT and FTA framework.

• Nigeria is among the most commercially significant investment treaty respondents in Sub-Saharan Africa, with investment disputes arising from the oil and gas sector, power generation concessions, telecommunications licences and financial sector regulatory measures
• Oil sector BIT claims: parallel investment and commercial arbitration proceedings involving major oil corporations and the Federal Republic of Nigeria over multibillion-dollar tax claims, licence conditions and upstream concession terms
• Power sector disputes: NIPP privatization, gas supply shortfall claims, power purchase agreement terminations and regulatory intervention in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission framework generating BIT FET and expropriation claims
• Nigerian courts and enforcement: the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act 1995 provides statutory consent to ICSID jurisdiction; enforcement of investment awards in Nigeria through Article 54 ICSID Convention and New York Convention procedures
• West Africa BIT landscape: growing network of bilateral investment treaties between Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal and capital-exporting states; ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments 2008 providing regional investment protection framework

At Three Crowns LLP, Harshavardhan Sancheti represented ExxonMobil and other major oil corporations in parallel investment and commercial arbitration proceedings arising from multibillion-dollar tax claims against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This is direct, case-specific investment treaty experience in the precise jurisdiction and sector Nigeria and oil and gas that generate the most significant West African BIT caseload. For counsel and parties seeking an arbitrator with direct familiarity with the legal, commercial and procedural landscape of Nigerian investment arbitration, his background at Three Crowns LLP on these proceedings is a compelling credential, complemented by his ICSID consultancy at the World Bank Group.

• Eastern Europe and Central Asia accounted for 24% of new ICSID cases in 2024 and 19% in 2025, the largest or second-largest regional concentration in both years driven by BIT claims arising from regulatory changes in energy, infrastructure and manufacturing sectors
• ECT proceedings: Russia (pre-2009 withdrawal sunset claims), Ukraine energy sector disputes, and Eastern European state measures affecting renewable energy investments generating ECT Article 10 FET and Article 13 expropriation claims
• SCC arbitration: Stockholm is the primary seat for Russia-related, CIS and Eastern European investment disputes
• Croatia: ICSID proceedings arising from state interference with corporate control, gas market regulations and licence revocations; among the most active Central European ICSID respondent states
• Ukraine: five new ICSID claims in 2025, the highest of any respondent state; wartime expropriation, infrastructure concession disruption and state enterprise conduct generating BIT claims under Ukraine’s network of BITs

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s career at Dechert LLP included representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in ICSID arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Croatia arising from state interference with corporate control, gas market regulations and licence revocations and separately in UNCITRAL proceedings involving the same state over corruption, breach of contract and corporate law claims. These are landmark proceedings in the Eastern European ICSID caseload and gave him direct, first-hand experience of exactly the type of state regulatory conduct, sovereign interference and parallel proceedings that characterize Eastern Europe and Central Asia investment arbitrations. No other aspect of his background more directly equips him to serve as arbitrator in this region.

• Eastern Europe and Central Asia accounted for 24% of new ICSID cases in 2024 and 19% in 2025, the largest or second-largest regional concentration in both years driven by BIT claims arising from regulatory changes in energy, infrastructure and manufacturing sectors
• ECT proceedings: Russia (pre-2009 withdrawal sunset claims), Ukraine energy sector disputes, and Eastern European state measures affecting renewable energy investments generating ECT Article 10 FET and Article 13 expropriation claims
• SCC arbitration: Stockholm is the primary seat for Russia-related, CIS and Eastern European investment disputes
• Croatia: ICSID proceedings arising from state interference with corporate control, gas market regulations and licence revocations; among the most active Central European ICSID respondent states
• Ukraine: five new ICSID claims in 2025, the highest of any respondent state; wartime expropriation, infrastructure concession disruption and state enterprise conduct generating BIT claims under Ukraine’s network of BITs

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s career at Dechert LLP included representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in ICSID arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Croatia arising from state interference with corporate control, gas market regulations and licence revocations and separately in UNCITRAL proceedings involving the same state over corruption, breach of contract and corporate law claims. These are landmark proceedings in the Eastern European ICSID caseload and gave him direct, first-hand experience of exactly the type of state regulatory conduct, sovereign interference and parallel proceedings that characterize Eastern Europe and Central Asia investment arbitrations. No other aspect of his background more directly equips him to serve as arbitrator in this region.

• Latin America generates the second-largest regional concentration of ICSID cases globally, with South America accounting for 20% of ICSID respondent states in 2025 driven by resource nationalism in oil, gas, mining, energy and infrastructure sectors
• Ecuador: one of the most active ICSID respondent states; Chevron v. Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23) and subsequent enforcement proceedings are landmark cases in the investment treaty field, setting precedent on parallel proceedings, denial of justice and enforcement of awards
• Venezuela and Bolivia: nationalization of oil, gas and mining assets generating dozens of ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings; BIT claims under Netherlands-Venezuela, Spain-Venezuela and bilateral investment treaties with European and North American states
• Mexico: CUSMA Chapter 14 claims arising from energy sector reforms; judicial interference claims; regulation of nearshoring infrastructure investments generating FET and expropriation disputes
• ICSID Additional Facility: used where a state is not an ICSID Convention member; UNCITRAL Rules administered by PCA for states that have withdrawn from ICSID or excluded ICSID jurisdiction in their BITs

At Three Crowns LLP, Harshavardhan Sancheti represented Chevron Corporation in its USD 800 million investor-state claim against the Republic of Ecuador one of the most consequential investment treaty proceedings in Latin American arbitration history. This direct, case-specific experience of sovereign conduct in Latin American BIT proceedings, combined with his service as Tribunal Secretary and Assistant to Prof. Jan Paulsson in ICSID proceedings, gives him a level of hands-on ICSID and UNCITRAL investment arbitration knowledge that is directly applicable to Latin American sovereign disputes. His DC bar admission and Washington D.C. practice background further anchor his standing in the institutional environment where Latin American investment treaty proceedings predominantly operate.

• Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 24% of new ICSID respondent states in 2025 the highest of any region driven by resource nationalism in mining and energy sectors across DRC, Guinea, Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana, Mali and Burkina Faso
• Resource nationalism claims: military junta-imposed mining code changes, licence revocations, windfall royalty increases and forced state participation in gold, cobalt, copper and uranium sectors generating BIT claims under Canada-Africa, UK-Africa and EU-Africa investment frameworks
• Energy sector BIT claims: expropriation of oil and gas assets, power generation concession revocations and solar energy project disputes under African BITs and the ECOWAS energy protocol
• OHADA arbitration framework: Francophone African investor-state disputes administered under the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration for proceedings involving Francophone West and Central African states
• Recognition and enforcement: ICSID Convention enforcement under Article 54 without domestic court review, supplemented by New York Convention enforcement in 172 states for non-ICSID awards

At Three Crowns LLP, Harshavardhan Sancheti worked on investment arbitration proceedings involving multibillion-dollar sovereign claims in Africa directly relevant to the resource nationalism and state conduct disputes that define the African ICSID caseload. At Wiley Rein LLP, he represented a Guinean company in ICC arbitration proceedings involving mining sector disputes, giving him direct exposure to West African mining disputes and the complex interplay between state sovereignty and investor protection in the region. His service as Special Legal Consultant at ICSID and as Tribunal Secretary and Assistant to Prof. Jan Paulsson in ICSID proceedings further strengthen his appointment credentials for Africa-seated or Africa-respondent investment treaty arbitrations.

• NAFTA Chapter 11 and CUSMA Chapter 14 investor-state arbitrations: among the most litigated FTA investment chapters globally, covering measures in energy, mining, finance and infrastructure sectors
• US BIT programme: over 40 US BITs in force, providing FET, full protection and security, expropriation and national treatment guarantee to US investors and reciprocal protection to foreign investors in the United States
• CFIUS-related investment disputes: foreign investment reviews and divestiture orders arising from national security determinations under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018
• US as home state of investor: US courts play a critical role in recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards and non-ICSID arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention
• US federal regulatory disputes: energy sector FET claims arising from FERC, EPA and state-level regulatory measures affecting foreign energy and infrastructure investors

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s career in Washington D.C. at Three Crowns LLP, where he represented ExxonMobil and other major oil corporations in parallel investment and commercial arbitration proceedings involving multibillion-dollar tax claims against the Federal Republic of Nigeria and at Wiley Rein LLP, where he represented international parties in ICC arbitration and before the Supreme Court of the United States, gives him direct knowledge of the US investment treaty framework, US federal arbitration procedure and the NAFTA/CUSMA chapter 14 environment that defines North American investor-state practice. Combined with his D.C. and New York bar admissions and his ICSID consultancy at the World Bank Group, this makes him a well-grounded appointment for disputes involving US investors or the US regulatory framework.

• Germany is the largest European JV arbitration jurisdiction, DIS administers disputes under German corporate law (GmbHG for GmbH JVs, AktG for AG structures)
• Automotive and industrial sector JV disputes: Germany’s major industrial groups generate high-value JV disputes in manufacturing, supply chain and technology transfer
• EU Critical Raw Materials Act and LkSG (Supply Chain Due Diligence Act) disputes: compliance failures in mining and industrial JVs with German partners
• Technology and IP JV disputes: automotive software, battery technology and hydrogen energy JVs generating IP ownership, licence scope and know-how transfer conflicts
• Cross-border JV disputes: German industrial partners in African, Latin American and Asian resource and manufacturing joint ventures

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s experience at Dechert LLP in high-value IP and technology platform disputes including a USD 135 million domain name arbitration on behalf of Afilias and a complex multi-party ICDR governance proceeding for Amazon.com involving institutional authority over internet domain rights provides directly transferable expertise for the IP ownership, technology licence and know-how transfer conflicts that define technology-driven JV disputes in Germany’s automotive and industrial sectors. Trained in ICC arbitration at ICC Paris, the institution most frequently chosen alongside DIS for cross-border German JV disputes with non-German counterparties, he brings the procedural fluency and cross-border commercial perspective that German-seated JV arbitrations require.

• HKIAC handled 503 new cases in 2024 with a record-breaking valuation of USD 13.6 billion, where JV and shareholder disputes are among the highest-value categories; HKIAC 2024 Rules improve consolidation and joinder for multi-party JVs
• Hong Kong Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) provides the substantive framework for incorporated JV disputes; unfair prejudice and winding-up remedies are well-developed
• Greater China JV disputes: Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong partners with international co-venturers cross-border structure, governance and exit conflicts
• Private equity and fund JV disputes: carried interest, management rights, LP removal and NAV disputes in Hong Kong-domiciled fund structures
• HKIAC awards enforceable in Mainland China via the 1999 Arrangement, a decisive practical advantage in JV disputes where assets or operations are located in China

As a Former Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), World Bank Group and as Tribunal Secretary to Prof. Jan Paulsson, one of the most distinguished international arbitrators of the generation Harshavardhan Sancheti has developed the institutional understanding and procedural precision that complex, multi-party Hong Kong JV arbitrations demand. The HKIAC’s growing caseload of China-related JV disputes, where foreign investors confront governance interference by state-linked partners, closely resembles the investor-state corporate control claims he has handled at the ICSID level.

• UAE is the primary MENA seat for JV and shareholder disputes DIAC 2022 Rules and the DIFC and ADGM common-law courts provide a sophisticated enforcement framework
• UAE Companies Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021) and DIFC Companies Law govern incorporated JVs; free zone structures add a layer of jurisdictional complexity
• GCC JV disputes: Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Bahraini partners with international co-venturers in real estate, infrastructure, financial services and energy sectors
• Important: Dubai Court of Cassation (October 2024) held that unilateral option clauses in dispute resolution/arbitration clauses are invalid, careful structuring of exit mechanisms is essential
• Green economy and Vision 2030 JV disputes: disputes in renewable energy, technology and healthcare JVs formed under UAE and Saudi Arabia national strategy frameworks

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct case experience through Three Crowns LLP in parallel investment treaty and commercial ICC arbitration proceedings  representing ExxonMobil and other oil majors against a Federal Republic in multibillion-dollar tax and regulatory claims that cut to the heart of corporate control and sovereign interference mirrors precisely the fact pattern of the most contentious UAE and GCC JV disputes, where sovereign partners and state-owned enterprises exercise regulatory leverage over the commercial venture. His familiarity with the DIAC 2022 procedural framework and England and Wales admission as a Solicitor underpin the two most common governing law and institutional frameworks for DIFC and ADGM-seated JV proceedings.

• India is one of the world’s fastest-growing JV arbitration jurisdictions, MCIA caseload grew significantly in 2023-24, with shareholder and JV disputes among the most frequent category
• Companies Act 2013 (ss. 241-244) provides oppression and mismanagement remedies for incorporated JVs; NCLT jurisdiction and arbitrability boundaries require careful navigation
• FEMA and RBI valuation norms constrain exit pricing in foreign-invested JVs disputes over exit valuation, compulsorily convertible instruments and FDI compliance are endemic
• Deadlock mechanisms such as Russian roulette, Texas shoot-out and put/call options are enforceable under Indian contract law if correctly structured
• GIFT IFSC developing as a neutral seat for India-related international JV disputes involving foreign investors

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s professional experience in ICSID and UNCITRAL investor-state proceedings at Dechert LLP representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in proceedings against the Republic of Croatia involving state interference with corporate control of a subsidiary, gas market regulation, licence revocations and criminal proceedings against company executives maps directly onto the most serious category of Indian JV disputes: those where a government-linked partner or regulatory authority takes action that disrupts the commercial structure of the venture. That case-hardened experience, combined with his Indian Bar admission and existing appointments as arbitrator in Indian proceedings, makes him a well-grounded and practically experienced choice for India-seated JV and shareholder arbitrations.

• Singapore is the primary Asia-Pacific seat for international JV disputes SIAC handled 93% international cases in 2024, with JV and shareholder disputes among the largest by value
• SIAC 2025 Rules provide for emergency arbitrator and consolidation critical tools in multi-party JV disputes where parallel proceedings and interim relief are required
• Singapore Companies Act (Cap. 50) and the common law framework govern incorporated JV entities; Singapore courts have developed sophisticated JV dispute jurisprudence since 2022
• Technology and fintech JV disputes: Singapore is the primary hub for Asia-Pacific tech, digital platform and fintech partnership conflicts
• Cross-border ASEAN JV disputes: disputes between Chinese, Indian, Korean and ASEAN parties in manufacturing, real estate and infrastructure JVs frequently seated in Singapore

As a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and a practitioner who represented Fortune 500 companies including ExxonMobil and other oil majors in parallel investment and commercial ICC arbitration proceedings through Three Crowns LLP in high-stakes disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion in aggregate across Singapore, London, Geneva and Washington D.C., Harshavardhan Sancheti brings the scale of experience that parties in complex Singapore-seated JV arbitrations require. His ICC Paris training gives him procedural fluency equally applicable under SIAC’s institutional framework and his cross-sector JV exposure spanning construction, energy, mining and technology sectors makes him a commercially versatile appointment for the full spectrum of Asia-Pacific JV disputes.

• Delaware corporate law governs the majority of US JV entities LLC operating agreement and LP agreement disputes are among the most frequent JV arbitration matters
• New York law governs most US-international JV shareholders’ agreements fiduciary duty, minority oppression and non-compete enforcement under New York law
• AAA-ICDR is the primary US institution for domestic and international JV disputes; JAMS used for high-value multi-party commercial conflicts
• Private equity and venture capital JV disputes: LP removal, carry conflicts, management fee disputes and fund governance deadlocks under Delaware and Cayman law
• Cross-border JV disputes under USMCA involving US, Canadian and Mexican parties in energy, technology and manufacturing sectors

Admitted to practice in both New York and the District of Columbia, Harshavardhan Sancheti has direct experience in a high-value multi-party ICDR independent review proceeding representing Amazon.com against ICANN through Dechert LLP in a complex governance dispute over institutional authority and contractual rights that closely mirrors partnership and JV governance conflicts. He also advised on successful settlement strategy in a USD 760 million manufacturing partnership dispute at Three Crowns LLP, demonstrating a practical command of the commercial pressure points and negotiating dynamics that determine outcomes in US-seated JV arbitrations.

• London is the pre-eminent seat for high-value international JV arbitrations English law governs the majority of cross-border shareholders’ agreements and JV contracts globally
• LCIA and ICC are the institutions most frequently chosen for JV disputes under English law; the English Commercial Court provides authoritative supervisory jurisdiction
• English Companies Act 2006 unfair prejudice remedies (s.994) and partnership law provide the substantive framework for disputes between JV co-venturers
• Post-acquisition and earn-out disputes: English law governed SPA, warranty and indemnity, locked-box and completion accounts conflicts
• New UK Arbitration Act 2025 enhances summary disposal powers particularly valuable for time-sensitive JV deadlock and exit mechanism disputes

Harshavardhan Sancheti has substantive experience as counsel in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration arising from a construction joint venture representing a New York-based developer against a Korean construction major through Wiley Rein LLP in a high-stakes dispute combining JV governance, performance obligation and commercial recovery claims. That direct exposure to the lifecycle of a broken JV, from the triggering event through to ICC tribunal proceedings, gives him an insider’s understanding of exactly how construction and infrastructure JV disputes unfold before a London-seated ICC tribunal. Trained in ICC arbitration procedure at ICC Paris and admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales, he is procedurally and substantively equipped to conduct LCIA and ICC JV arbitrations under English law with commercial authority.

• Indian shipping arbitration under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, amended 2019/2021
• Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) appointments accepted
• Disputes involving Indian charterers, cargo owners and P&I Club members: container and bulk cargo claims
• Voyage charterparty disputes under iron ore, coal, fertiliser and grain trades from and to Indian ports
• Cabotage disputes, vessel arrest proceedings and Indian Admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty Act 2017

India’s maritime arbitration framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended, the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 and a growing MCIA and ICA institutional caseload benefits from arbitrators who combine international credentials with a direct connection to Indian law and practice. Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as an advocate in India, holds a Cambridge MA in Law and an LL.M. with distinction from Georgetown University Law Center and trained at the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris. As counsel, he advised an Indian company on potential ICSID annulment proceedings and was appointed as Arbitrator by the National Internet Exchange of India in .IN domain name disputes demonstrating that he has already been trusted as a decision-maker in Indian proceedings. His service as a Special Legal Consultant at ICSID at the World Bank Group, his representation of parties in proceedings under ICC, ICSID, UNCITRAL and ICDR rules and his direct familiarity with Indian arbitration procedure, Indian admiralty jurisdiction and the voyage charterparty disputes that arise on the Indian iron ore, coal, fertiliser and grain trades make him a particularly well-placed arbitrator for India-seated maritime proceedings and for disputes where Indian charterers, cargo owners or P&I Club members are parties.

• Dubai and Abu Dhabi as key Middle East maritime hubs for tanker disputes, container trade and offshore conflicts
• DIAC 2022 Rules for MENA shipping disputes
• Disputes in the Gulf: tanker charterparties, VLCC and product tanker conflicts, UAE port-related claims
• LNG shipping disputes routed through Qatar, UAE and Oman involving European and Asian counterparties
• Cross-border disputes between Gulf shipowners and Far East / European charterers and cargo interests

Dubai’s emergence as a maritime arbitration hub through EMAC and DIAC 2022, and the volume of tanker, LNG shipping and offshore vessel disputes generated by Gulf energy trade, require an arbitrator with strong institutional credentials and direct experience of cross-border disputes involving state-connected and multinational energy parties. Harshavardhan Sancheti’s career included representing major international oil corporations including a global oil major in parallel investment and commercial arbitration proceedings involving multibillion-dollar tax claims against an African sovereign state and another oil major in an USD 800 million investor-state claim proceedings that closely mirror the complexity and party profile of Gulf energy shipping disputes. His ICC Paris arbitration training is directly relevant: the ICC is one of the two institutions most consistently chosen for complex cross-border Gulf maritime and energy disputes. His membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and his admitted status in New York, Washington D.C. and England and Wales further strengthen his suitability for DIAC-seated and EMAC-administered maritime proceedings involving Gulf shipowners and their international counterparties.

• HKIAC is the leading maritime arbitration centre in the Asia-Pacific alongside Singapore for major disputes
• HKIAC Maritime Arbitration Group (HKMAG) providing specialist support for shipping and offshore disputes
• Disputes involving Greater China trade: container shipping, bulk carriers and PRC-related cargo claims
• Cross-border disputes: Mainland China shipping companies, Hong Kong registered vessels and Taiwan trade
• Enforcement of awards in China under the 1999 Arrangement and New York Convention recognition in 172 states

Hong Kong’s value as a maritime arbitration seat lies in its combination of HKIAC Rules 2024 institutional procedure, the specialist HKMAG panel and the ability to enforce awards in Mainland China under the 1999 Arrangement a route unavailable from any other international seat. Harshavardhan Sancheti’s record of representing Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes international arbitration proceedings across London, Singapore and Geneva in disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion and his ICC Paris arbitration training, give him the institutional depth and cross-border commercial experience that Hong Kong maritime appointments require. His service as a Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank Group, where he gained direct insight into the conduct of major international proceedings involving state and commercial parties from Asia, Africa and Latin America, further demonstrates the level of international arbitration experience he brings to any appointment including for PRC-related container shipping, bulk carrier and cargo claims where Mainland China enforcement is a commercial priority.

• Piraeus is the world’s largest shipping centre; Greek shipowners control approximately 20% of global tonnage
• Disputes involving Greek shipowning families, management companies and ship finance transactions
• Greek-flag vessel disputes under Greek law and LMAA arbitrations with English governing law
• Sale and purchase disputes under Norwegian Sale Form (NSF) involving Greek buyers and sellers
• Ship finance disputes: Greek bank shipping portfolios, restructuring and security enforcement

Greek shipowners control approximately 20% of global merchant fleet tonnage and the majority of their disputes charterparty conflicts, Norwegian Saleform sale and purchase disagreements and ship finance restructuring proceedings are resolved through London LMAA arbitration under English governing law, with ICC arbitration used for complex multi-party matters. Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales and holds a Cambridge MA in Law, giving him the English law foundation that Greek shipping disputes require. His career as counsel in multi-billion-dollar ICC proceedings including representation of a major developer in a USD multi-billion ICC arbitration against a Korean construction major and experience in ICC mining sector arbitration involving a West African state party demonstrates his fluency in the ICC framework used for complex Greek maritime and offshore disputes. His service as Tribunal Secretary and Assistant to Prof. Jan Paulsson further equips him to manage the procedural rigour that high-value Greek shipping arbitrations demand.

• New York is the primary US seat for maritime arbitration, administered by the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA)
• SMA arbitrations under SMA Rules with three-arbitrator panels; experienced maritime practitioners on the panel
• US tanker trade disputes, container line agreements, Gulf of Mexico offshore service vessel contracts
• COGSA (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act) cargo claims, Jones Act disputes and US federal admiralty jurisdiction
• AAA-ICDR and LCIA appointments accepted for US-international shipping disputes under English or New York law

Harshavardhan Sancheti brings one of the strongest US-based international arbitration credentials among arbitrators active in the maritime sector. Admitted to the New York Bar and the District of Columbia Bar, he holds an LL.M. with distinction from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington D.C. and trained at the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris. In his career as counsel, he represented Fortune 500 companies including major oil corporations in parallel investment and commercial arbitration proceedings in New York, London and Washington D.C. and represented a global technology company in a USD 760 million manufacturing dispute. He also represented parties before the Supreme Court of the United States and in ICDR proceedings. His direct experience of SMA, AAA-ICDR and LCIA proceedings under both English and New York governing law, combined with his understanding of COGSA cargo claims, Jones Act disputes and US federal admiralty jurisdiction, positions him as a particularly effective appointment for US-international shipping arbitrations where parties require an arbitrator grounded in both US law and international arbitration practice.

• Singapore is the leading Asia-Pacific maritime arbitration hub, handling the largest volume of disputes outside London
• SCMA arbitration under 4th Edition Rules 2022, with SICC Jurisdiction Model Clause available since November 2023
• Disputes involving ASEAN, India, China and Middle East shipping parties increasingly seated in Singapore
• Container shipping disputes, LNG shipping conflicts, tanker charterparties and regional bulk carrier disputes
• Singapore courts provide effective enforcement via IAA 1994 and robust interim relief including vessel arrest

Singapore’s role as Asia’s premier maritime arbitration hub under SCMA 4th Edition Rules 2022 and the IAA 1994 enforcement framework demands an arbitrator with rigorous international arbitration credentials and proven cross-border experience. Harshavardhan Sancheti’s LL.M. in International Legal Studies with distinction from Georgetown University Law Center, his ICC Paris arbitration training and his record of representing Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes arbitration proceedings in Singapore, London, New York, Geneva and Washington D.C. in disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion demonstrate the level of cross-border commercial arbitration experience that Singapore-seated maritime proceedings require. His familiarity with ASEAN and Asia-Pacific commercial parties, combined with his admitted status as a New York attorney, D.C. bar member and England and Wales solicitor, makes him a credible and procedurally well-equipped neutral for container shipping, LNG carrier and tanker charterparty disputes seated in Singapore.

• London handles over 80% of the world’s maritime arbitrations the dominant global seat for shipping disputes
• LMAA arbitration under LMAA Terms 2021, with new Arbitration Act 2025 enhancing summary disposal and default powers
• English Commercial Court and Admiralty Court supervision: section 69 appeals on questions of law, anti-suit injunctions
• The full range of maritime disputes: charterparties, bills of lading, shipbuilding, ship sale, marine insurance and offshore
• P&I Club disputes, FD&D cover claims and London Market marine insurance arbitrations under the Insurance Act 2015

London is the seat for over 80% of the world’s maritime arbitrations and English law governs the majority of international charterparties, bills of lading and marine insurance policies. Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales, holds a Master of Arts in Law from the University of Cambridge. He received advanced arbitration training at the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris. As counsel at a leading Washington D.C. international disputes practice, he represented a New York-based developer in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration against a major Korean construction company the type of high-value, multi-jurisdictional commercial arbitration that defines London’s maritime and construction caseload. He also served as Tribunal Secretary and Assistant to leading international arbitrators including Prof. Jan Paulsson, one of the most eminent figures in international arbitration, giving him direct insight into the conduct of complex proceedings from the tribunal’s perspective. His admission to the England and Wales bar, combined with his command of LMAA Terms 2021, the Arbitration Act 2025 and the Insurance Act 2015, makes him a well-credentialled appointment for London-seated shipping arbitrations.

• New York is a major seat for commodity trade disputes involving US agricultural exporters, energy traders and metals companies
• AAA-ICDR arbitration for US-international commodity disputes; JAMS for complex multi-party trade finance and supply chain conflicts
• OFAC sanctions disputes: US parties and their counterparties frequently face arbitration arising from export control and trade sanctions compliance conflicts
• US agricultural exports: soyabean, corn, wheat and cotton disputes under NAEGA, NGFA and GAFTA standard contracts with international buyers
• US energy commodity trade: LNG export contract disputes, Gulf Coast crude oil trading conflicts and LPG/NGL supply agreement arbitrations

Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted to the Bar in both New York and the District of Columbia and has practised international arbitration in Washington D.C. across Wiley Rein LLP, Three Crowns LLP and Dechert LLP law firms with active ICDR and ICC practices in the US market. At Dechert LLP he represented Amazon.com in an ICDR proceeding against ICANN, demonstrating direct hands-on experience under ICDR Rules in a complex, high-value multi-party dispute. He has also represented US parties in OFAC-adjacent energy and commodity disputes, making him a well-grounded choice for New York-seated ICDR commodity arbitrations with a cross-border regulatory dimension.

• China is the world’s largest commodity importer iron ore, copper, soyabean, crude oil, LNG and coal disputes increasingly involve Chinese counterparties
• CIETAC and SHIAC arbitrations accepted for China-related commodity trade disputes; CIETAC handled 5,237 cases in 2023 with significant commodity caseload
• Disputes arising from Chinese buyer non-payment, rejection of commodity cargo, price renegotiation and force majeure claims in commodity supply contracts
• RCEP-related commodity trade disputes: China-ASEAN agricultural product and industrial goods conflicts arising from new tariff structures since 2022
• Special considerations: New York Convention enforcement in China via 1987 bilateral arrangement; CIETAC awards enforceable in 172 Convention states

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s practical experience in high-value ICC proceedings the institution most frequently used as a neutral forum for disputes involving Chinese commodity counterparties who resist CIETAC and his deep familiarity with the New York Convention enforcement framework developed through his work as a Former Special Legal Consultant at ICSID, World Bank Group, make him a credible neutral for disputes where Chinese buyers or sellers require an internationally recognised, common law-trained arbitrator with no jurisdictional affiliation to the parties.

• India is a major commodity importer and exporter: coal, crude oil, edible oils, pulses, rice, cotton, fertilisers, metals and pharmaceuticals
• MCIA and ICA appointments accepted; Indian Supreme Court has reinforced minimal judicial intervention in international commercial arbitration since 2024
• GIFT IFSC (Gujarat International Finance Tec-City) developing as a new arbitration hub for international commodity and trade finance disputes
• India’s agricultural commodity import disputes: edible oil contracts under FOSFA and GAFTA frequently involve Indian parties as buyers and traders
• India-specific disputes: anti-dumping duty claims, customs valuation conflicts, FEMA export receipt violations and DGFT export obligation breaches

Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted to the Bar in India and is already appointed as an arbitrator in proceedings in India, the United States and the United Kingdom establishing a verified arbitration track record across all three of his primary jurisdictions. His Indian legal qualification, combined with an LL.M. from Georgetown and an MA in Law from Cambridge, places him at the intersection of Indian domestic regulatory knowledge and international arbitration practice. He has direct experience with Indian parties in cross-border energy and commodity disputes, and his understanding of FEMA, DGFT and customs frameworks makes him particularly well-suited to India-seated commodity arbitrations involving export obligation and trade finance conflicts.

• Dubai is a major hub for commodity trade in the MENA region petroleum products, metals, agricultural commodities, fertilisers and chemicals
• DIAC Rules 2022 and DIFC-LCIA arbitration widely used for UAE-based trading disputes; ArbitrateAD launched in Abu Dhabi in 2024 as a new institution
• Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC) the world’s largest free zone for commodity trading generates disputes resolved through DIAC and DIFC-LCIA arbitration
• Middle East petrochemical trade disputes: Saudi ARAMCO, ADNOC and regional NOC contracts involving export sale and destination restriction enforcement
• Fertiliser trade disputes: MENA is a major exporter of urea, DAP and potash disputes under standard ANSC/ICC contracts frequently arise in this jurisdiction

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct experience in energy sector ICC arbitrations including work on proceedings involving ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil majors at Three Crowns LLP gives him a substantive understanding of the commodity trade structures and NOC contract frameworks that generate disputes in the MENA region. His ICC training in Paris and his admission as an England and Wales Solicitor, the governing legal system most frequently chosen for DIFC-LCIA and ICC arbitrations seated in Dubai, make him a practically well-qualified arbitrator for UAE-seated commodity and petrochemical trade disputes.

• Geneva is the global centre for commodity trading companies major trading houses including Vitol, Trafigura, Glencore, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus are headquartered here
• Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021 provide efficient, cost-effective procedure widely used for commodity trade and energy disputes
• Geneva as neutral seat for disputes between parties from sanctioned jurisdictions, BRICS countries and Western counterparties perceived political neutrality valued
• ICC arbitration seated in Geneva for large-value commodity disputes involving Swiss trading houses and their global counterparties
• Cross-commodity disputes: crude oil, LNG, metals, agricultural commodities and carbon credits with Swiss law governing where parties so agree

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s deep grounding in ICC arbitration acquired through formal ICC training in Paris and through substantive ICC case experience at Three Crowns LLP and Wiley Rein LLP involving multi-billion-dollar disputes make him well-positioned for ICC-seated arbitrations in Geneva, the second most common seat for ICC proceedings globally. His experience representing parties in disputes involving sanctioned jurisdictions and cross-border commodity structures, combined with his neutral profile as a practitioner admitted across common law and civil law jurisdictions, addresses precisely the cross-border neutrality that Geneva-seated commodity arbitrations demand.

• Singapore is the primary Asia-Pacific hub for international commodity trade arbitration agricultural commodities, energy products, metals and manufactured goods
• SIAC 2025 Rules provide for expedited procedure, emergency arbitrator and third-party funding widely preferred for Asia-Pacific commodity disputes
• Asian commodity trading disputes: palm oil, rubber, rice, LNG, coal, copper and iron ore Singapore courts enforce awards efficiently under the IAA 1994
• Major commodity trading houses based in Singapore: Trafigura, Gunvor, Vitol Asia, Louis Dreyfus, Singapore seat preferred for cross-border commodity disputes
• RCEP-driven growth in intra-Asia commodity trade since 2022 generates disputes between parties from ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea and India

Harshavardhan Sancheti has represented Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes arbitration proceedings across Singapore, New York, London, Geneva and Washington D.C. involving disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion demonstrating direct familiarity with Singapore as a seat and with the commercial structures used by the major trading houses headquartered there. His admitted status in four jurisdictions (New York, DC, England & Wales and India), combined with membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), makes him a credible and well-qualified neutral for SIAC-seated commodity disputes involving Asian parties and cross-border trade flows.

• London is the dominant global seat for commodity trade arbitration GAFTA, FOSFA and English law govern 80%+ of world grain, oilseed and soft commodity trade
• New UK Arbitration Act 2025 enhances London’s attractiveness: improved summary disposal, clearer default provisions, governing law of arbitration agreement codified
• English Commercial Court provides effective supervisory jurisdiction including section 69 appeals on questions of law and interim injunctive relief
• Commodity trade association arbitrations: GAFTA Rule 125, FOSFA Rules, RSA, ICA, CTF and CAL all London-based with English law governing
• LME-linked metals disputes, energy commodity trading under ISDA, crude oil and petroleum product sale contracts under English law and London arbitration

Harshavardhan Sancheti is admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales, holds an LL.M. in International Legal Studies (with Distinction, Dean’s List) from Georgetown University Law Center and a Master of Arts in Law from Cambridge University, two of the institutions most closely associated with English commercial and arbitration law scholarship. Trained directly in ICC arbitration procedure in Paris and having served as Tribunal Secretary to Prof. Jan Paulsson, one of the foremost international arbitrators of his generation, he brings first-hand procedural knowledge of how London-seated ICC and LCIA arbitrations are actually conducted. His work at Three Crowns LLP on multi-billion-dollar ICC proceedings, and at Wiley Rein LLP on ICC mining and construction arbitrations, makes him a procedurally rigorous and commercially grounded choice for London-seated commodity and trade disputes.

• HKIAC arbitration under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609); strong enforcement under the New York Convention
• China-related energy disputes: CNOOC, Sinopec and CNPC upstream and trading contract conflicts
• Coal, LNG and petroleum products trade disputes for China and East Asia import markets
• Energy infrastructure financing and ECA-backed projects across Belt & Road Initiative corridors
• Coal, LNG and petroleum products trade disputes for China and East Asia import markets

As a Former Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), World Bank Group, Harshavardhan Sancheti has direct institutional experience with the enforcement and procedural frameworks that underpin high-value energy arbitration involving sovereign and state-owned parties precisely the counterparty profile of CNOOC, Sinopec and CNPC disputes. His Tribunal Secretary role alongside Prof. Jan Paulsson a leading scholar and practitioner in international arbitration and his exposure to Belt and Road infrastructure financing disputes through prior practice positions him as a procedurally rigorous and commercially informed appointment for Hong Kong-seated China-facing energy proceedings.

• DIS arbitration under German ZPO procedural rules and the German Energy Industry Act (EnWG)
• Gas storage and pipeline disputes: European gas grid interconnection, balancing and capacity contracts
• Energiewende transition: onshore wind, solar PV and offshore Baltic Sea project disputes
• EU REMIT and MiFID II energy commodity trading regulation disputes

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s ICC Paris training the institution most frequently chosen alongside DIS for high-value German energy arbitrations involving non-German counterparties provides the procedural fluency that cross-border energy disputes in the German market require. His academic formation at Georgetown Law and Cambridge, both deeply engaged with public international law and regulatory frameworks, equips him with the comparative legal foundation needed to navigate the intersection of EnWG, EU energy regulation and international arbitration procedure that characterises German-seated energy proceedings.

• DIAC Rules 2022 and DIFC-LCIA arbitration for Middle East upstream oil & gas disputes
• ADNOC concession and joint venture disputes; onshore and offshore Abu Dhabi block contracts
• Solar and wind PPA disputes: DEWA, Masdar and ACWA Power procurement contracts
• Cross-border disputes involving Saudi Aramco, QatarEnergy and GCC NOC joint ventures

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct case experience in energy disputes involving state-owned enterprises and sovereign parties including multi-billion-dollar tax and commercial claims against a Federal Republic arising from energy sector operations gives him a substantive understanding of the NOC joint venture structures, concession frameworks and sovereign counterparty dynamics that define MENA energy arbitrations. His ICC Paris training and England and Wales admission underpin the two most common governing law and institutional choices for DIAC and DIFC-LCIA energy proceedings in the Gulf, making him an effective and well-prepared neutral for UAE-seated disputes.

• Proceedings under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (amended 2019/2021) including institutional and ad hoc arbitration
• Gas price disputes: ONGC, Reliance Industries KG-D6 and NELP/OALP block Production Sharing Contracts
• Renewable energy PPA disputes: Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) procurement contracts
• India-Mauritius BIT and UNCITRAL investor-state arbitration in the energy sector

Admitted to the Bar in India and already appointed as an arbitrator in proceedings in India, the United Kingdom and the United States, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings a verified arbitration track record across his primary jurisdictions. His ICSID and UNCITRAL investor-state experience including representing MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company in ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings against Croatia arising from energy licence revocations and regulatory measures, conducted through Dechert LLP directly mirrors the PSC, BIT and UNCITRAL investor-state proceedings that arise in the Indian energy sector. His Bar admission in India means parties can engage him with confidence that he understands the domestic regulatory architecture alongside the international arbitration framework.

• SIAC arbitration under the International Arbitration Act, primary gateway for Asia-Pacific energy disputes
• LNG spot and term trade disputes for Asia-Pacific destination markets and cargo diversions
• Cross-border renewable energy JVs across ASEAN: solar, hydro and geothermal projects
• Energy infrastructure financing across Southeast Asia and South Asia

Harshavardhan Sancheti has represented Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes proceedings across Singapore, among other major seats, in matters involving disputes exceeding USD 5.4 billion in aggregate. That direct geographic and commercial exposure to Singapore-seated arbitration combined with his ICC Paris training, his CIArb membership and his fluency in the investment treaty framework applicable to ASEAN renewable energy and infrastructure disputes makes him a credible and commercially alert appointment for parties seeking an Asia-Pacific neutral without jurisdictional affiliation to the region.

• Disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act and state energy statutes (Texas, Delaware, New York)
• FERC-regulated disputes: natural gas pipeline tariffs and electricity market rules under the Federal Power Act
• LNG export terminal contracts and Gulf of Mexico upstream PSA disputes
• Shale and unconventional resource joint development agreements
• Cross-border USMCA energy investment disputes

Admitted to the Bar in both New York and the District of Columbia and trained in ICC arbitration at ICC Paris, Harshavardhan Sancheti has substantive experience representing parties including a developer in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration against a Korean construction major and a leading renewable energy company in settlement negotiations with a Korean energy corporation through his work at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington D.C. That background, combined with his membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and hands-on familiarity with the ICDR rules framework, makes him a well-grounded and practically capable appointment for US-seated energy arbitrations under the FAA.

• Proceedings under the DIS Arbitration Rules governed by Book 10 of the German ZPO, with specialized application of the Federal Mining Act (BBergG)
• European critical minerals disputes: Long-term industrial supply, price-hedging, and off-take agreements executed by German automotive and industrial majors
• CRMA compliance and regulatory conflicts: Disputes arising from the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, including fast-track permitting challenges for Strategic Projects and corporate risk-preparedness audits
• Cross-border mining JV conflicts: Representing German partners in African and Latin American resource projects, navigating the strict operational compliance mandates of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG)
• Metals and commodities trading disputes under German law and European market regulations, focusing on physical delivery failures and exchange-cleared contract defaults

Trained in ICC arbitration at ICC Paris the institution most commonly chosen alongside DIS for high-value German mining and metals disputes with non-German counterparties and holding an LL.M. (with Distinction, Dean’s List) from Georgetown University Law Center and a Master of Arts in Law from Cambridge University, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings the comparative legal depth and cross-border regulatory literacy that German-seated arbitrations demand. His academic formation across two of the leading common law institutions, combined with his ICC procedural expertise and his understanding of the EU Critical Raw Materials Act compliance framework, makes him a well-grounded appointment for DIS proceedings involving European critical minerals supply agreements and cross-border mining JV disputes.

• Proceedings under the DIAC Rules 2022 utilizing the DIFC or ADGM as common-law seats for MENA critical minerals, phosphate and metals trading disputes
• Saudi Arabia MA’ADEN disputes: Complex phosphate, bauxite, and gold mining joint ventures, infrastructure development friction and foreign investment protections under the new Saudi Civil Transactions Law
• The UAE as a neutral arbitral seat for Africa-Asia critical minerals trading corridors, managing cross-border logistics and pricing disputes for cobalt, lithium and copper concentrates
• Cross-border multi-party disputes involving state-owned mining enterprises (SOEs) across the GCC, African and Asian jurisdictions
• Green minerals supply chain disputes: High-value offtake and distribution contract failures for solar components and EV battery minerals routed through Gulf logistics hubs

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s direct experience in parallel investment treaty and commercial arbitration proceedings involving oil majors and a sovereign state where multibillion-dollar tax claims, regulatory measures and state-enterprise interventions were in dispute mirrors the precise fact patterns that arise in MENA mining and metals disputes involving GCC state-owned enterprises. His ICC Paris training and England and Wales admission as a Solicitor underpin the two most frequently chosen governing law and institutional frameworks for DIAC and DIFC-LCIA proceedings in the Gulf, making him a practically informed and procedurally equipped neutral for UAE-seated minerals and metals disputes.

• Proceedings under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (as amended), including institutional, ad hoc and international commercial arbitrations
• Coal sector disputes: Coal India Limited (CIL) and SECL Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) conflicts, quality-grade slippage and transport-link force majeure claims
• Iron ore and steel disputes: NMDC, SAIL and Tata Steel raw material offtake, captive mine allocation, and joint venture arbitrations
• Critical minerals disputes: Rare earth licenses, lithium concession allocation in Jammu & Kashmir and investor-state claims under India’s modernized BIT architecture (including the new India-Mauritius BIT framework)
• Greenfield and brownfield mining disputes under the MMDR Act, with specialized emphasis on post-2024 mineral royalty and state tax levy conflicts.

Admitted to the Bar in India and already appointed as an arbitrator in proceedings across India, the United Kingdom and the United States, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings a verified, multi-jurisdictional arbitration track record alongside a genuine understanding of the Indian regulatory environment. His knowledge of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Coal India contractual frameworks, captive mine allocation disputes and the investor-state architecture of India’s modernised BIT programme reflect the specific legal landscape of Indian mining and minerals arbitration not merely a general arbitration capability applied to an unfamiliar jurisdiction.

• Peru mining disputes: copper, silver and zinc concession conflicts, community opposition claims and PPA enforcement
• Chile lithium and copper disputes: Governance and transition friction within the landmark Codelco-SQM joint venture (NovaAndino Litio), state majority control mandates, and sliding-scale royalty conflicts
• Mexico mining nationalization disputes: constitutional amendments, water use restrictions and ejido land access claims
• Investment treaty arbitration under Free Trade Agreements: USMCA, Pacific Alliance and bilateral investment treaties
• ICSID proceedings for Latin American resource nationalism: fair treatment and stabilization clause breaches

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s substantive experience in ICSID and UNCITRAL investor-state proceedings including representing a party in proceedings against a Republic where the state revoked energy licences, imposed regulatory measures and initiated criminal proceedings against company executives provides precisely the treaty arbitration depth that Latin American resource nationalism disputes demand. His understanding of the interplay between stabilization clauses, fair and equitable treatment standards and USMCA and Pacific Alliance investment chapter protections directly mirrors the legal architecture through which Chilean, Peruvian and Mexican mining disputes are resolved under international law.

• DRC cobalt and copper mining disputes: Concession revocations, arbitrary royalty increases and conflicts with state-owned enterprises like Gécamines
• Zambia copper disputes: Commercial and legacy debt arbitrations arising from the Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) restructure, nationalization defenses and privatization reversal claims
• West Africa gold disputes: Mali, Ghana, and Burkina Faso mining code overhauls, state audit penalties, licence revocations, and windfall taxes
• Resource nationalism claims under BITs: Strategic enforcement of stabilization clauses, fair and equitable treatment (FET) violations and expropriation claims
• OHADA arbitration for Francophone Africa and ICSID/LCIA proceedings for Anglophone African mining states.

As a Former Special Legal Consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), World Bank Group, Harshavardhan Sancheti has direct institutional knowledge of the investor-state framework through which African mining expropriation, concession revocation and stabilization clause enforcement claims are most frequently pursued. His practical experience in ICC arbitration proceedings involving a Guinean mining entity a jurisdiction emblematic of West African resource nationalism further grounds his understanding of the commercial and sovereign dynamics at play in sub-Saharan Africa. This combination of ICSID institutional expertise and real-world African mining arbitration experience makes him a distinctive and well-qualified choice for disputes across both Francophone and anglophone African jurisdictions.

• Legacy NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state claims and provincial mining regulatory disputes under federal and provincial law
• Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario mining disputes under provincial mining codes and the Mines Act
• Gold and potash producer disputes: Barrick, Agnico Eagle, Kinross and Nutrien contract and JV conflicts
• Indigenous land title and free, prior and informed consent disputes affecting mining operations across Canada
• Critical minerals disputes: lithium, cobalt and nickel supply agreements with European and Asian buyers

Admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia, England and Wales and India, Harshavardhan Sancheti brings a genuinely multi-jurisdictional legal profile that reflects the cross-border character of Canadian mining disputes where federal and provincial regulatory layers intersect with international investment treaty frameworks and the commercial interests of globally listed mining majors. His experience representing Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes arbitration proceedings exceeding USD 5.4 billion across New York, London, Geneva and Singapore gives him direct exposure to the scale and complexity of disputes that major gold, potash and critical minerals producers generate.

• ICC and SIAC arbitration for Australia’s world-leading gold, iron ore, copper, lithium and rare earth mining disputes
• FIRB-regulated foreign investment disputes in Australian mines under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act
• Pilbara iron ore JV disputes: production balancing, offtake priority, infrastructure access and port sharing agreements
• Critical minerals disputes: Australian lithium, cobalt and rare earth offtake agreements with Asian buyers
• Australia-US critical minerals partnership disputes under bilateral frameworks, including the US-Australia Critical Minerals Framework Agreement and IRA-aligned supply chains.

Trained in ICC arbitration procedure at ICC Paris the institution most frequently chosen for Australian mining disputes of significant value and holding membership of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), Harshavardhan Sancheti brings procedural fluency to ICC and SIAC-seated arbitrations involving Australian producers. His hands-on understanding of critical minerals offtake structures, FIRB foreign investment regulatory constraints and the Australia-US supply chain frameworks underpinning lithium and rare earth agreements positions him as a commercially informed and procedurally well-prepared arbitrator for disputes arising from Australia’s world-leading extractive industries.

• India is a major and growing financial arbitration jurisdiction; the Supreme Court has reinforced minimal court intervention in international commercial arbitration since 2024
• GIFT IFSC (Gujarat International Finance Tec-City) developing as a specialist hub for international financial disputes with proposed international court and arbitration centre
• MCIA arbitration accepted for India-related banking disputes: foreign bank lending to Indian corporates, cross-border loan defaults, NPA and restructuring disputes
• RBI-regulated financial institution disputes: foreign exchange control, external commercial borrowing disputes, trade credit and correspondent banking termination claims
• India-UAE and India-Singapore bilateral financial disputes increasingly prevalent given significant bilateral trade and investment flows between these jurisdictions

As a practitioner of Indian origin who has trained and practised in the US international arbitration market including at Three Crowns LLP and through an LLM at Georgetown Law Center Harshavardhan Sancheti brings a genuine bridge between Indian financial regulatory frameworks (RBI, FEMA, external commercial borrowing) and the international arbitration procedural standards that cross-border lenders and borrowers expect. His understanding of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 as amended and the emerging GIFT IFSC dispute resolution landscape makes him a well-grounded choice for India-seated and India-related financial arbitrations.

• Switzerland is a neutral seat for financial disputes between parties from politically sensitive jurisdictions particularly valued in disputes involving Russian, Chinese or Iranian counterparties
• Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021 provide efficient, confidential procedure widely used for private banking, wealth management and structured finance disputes
• Geneva is the seat for disputes involving major commodity trading finance, structured credit and hedge fund investment conflicts where Swiss law governs
• Private banking and wealth management disputes: Swiss financial secrecy tradition and Swiss law make Geneva and Zurich preferred seats for high-net-worth client conflicts
• Swiss Federal Tribunal provides reliable and sophisticated supervisory jurisdiction with limited grounds for challenge important for enforcement certainty

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s background at Three Crowns LLP a firm with experience in politically sensitive, high-value international disputes where neutrality of seat is paramount and his ICC and UNCITRAL procedural knowledge directly applicable under the Swiss Rules, make him a suitable neutral for Swiss-seated banking and financial arbitrations. His cross-jurisdictional training equips him to handle the civil and common law intersections that frequently arise in Swiss-seated disputes between parties from divergent legal systems.

• Dubai and Abu Dhabi are the primary MENA financial arbitration hubs; DIFC Courts and ADGM Courts provide world-class supervisory jurisdiction in English
• DIAC Rules 2022 and DIFC-LCIA widely used for UAE banking and financial disputes; ArbitrateAD launched in Abu Dhabi in 2024 as a major new institution
• Note: the Dubai Court of Cassation held in October 2024 that unilateral option clauses common in banking practice are invalid, careful drafting is essential for UAE-seated disputes
• Islamic finance hub: Dubai and Abu Dhabi are primary seats for sukuk defaults, murabaha disputes, ijarah conflicts and Islamic syndicated finance disagreements
• GCC financial institution disputes: Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Bahraini bank lending and project finance conflicts frequently arbitrated with UAE seat under English law

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s specialist knowledge of Islamic finance dispute types including sukuk defaults, murabaha and ijarah conflicts combined with his procedural training across the ICC, LCIA and DIAC rule sets, positions him as a considered and procedurally careful choice for UAE-seated banking arbitrations. His awareness of the Dubai Court of Cassation’s October 2024 ruling on unilateral option clauses, a significant pitfall in banking dispute clauses reflects the current, jurisdiction-specific knowledge that parties and their counsel rightly expect from an arbitrator in this region.

• Paris is the global home of the ICC International Court of Arbitration the world’s leading institution for complex, high-value financial disputes with US$354 billion in pending cases
• ICC arbitration seated in Paris for major banking disputes: syndicated loans, sovereign debt restructuring, Eurobond defaults and cross-border acquisition finance
• French arbitration law (2011 reform) supports a pro-arbitration approach; Paris courts are experienced supervisory courts for ICC financial sector awards
• Sovereign debt and state finance disputes: Paris is a preferred seat where one party is a state or state-owned bank; French courts enforce awards with limited grounds to challenge
• EU-regulated financial institution disputes: French law and Paris seat used for disputes between European banks and their counterparties in investment and corporate lending

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s deep familiarity with ICC procedure, developed through his specialized training in ICC Paris arbitration and his practice at Three Crowns LLP, a premier firm whose partners routinely spearhead massive ICC arbitrations in the energy, financial and investment treaty sectors make him exceptionally well-equipped to serve as an arbitrator in Paris-seated ICC banking disputes. His LLM specialization in international arbitration, which focused heavily on the unique procedural architecture of the ICC, including the drafting of Terms of Reference and navigating the Court’s strict award scrutiny process, provides the exact institutional knowledge that high-value financial arbitrations demand.

• HKIAC handled 503 new cases in 2024 (97.1% seated in Hong Kong); banking and financial disputes are among the highest-value categories on the HKIAC docket
• Crypto and digital asset disputes drove a sharp increase in banking-related HKIAC cases from 2021 to 2022; courts recognise cryptocurrency as property capable of trust
• Greater China financial disputes: Mainland China bank lending, offshore RMB bond defaults, dim sum bond disputes and cross-border PRC-related financial conflicts
• Strong enforcement of HKIAC awards in Mainland China via the 1999 Arrangement; awards also enforceable in 172 New York Convention signatory states
• HKIAC 2024 Rules introduce refined provisions on emergency arbitrators, consolidation and joinder particularly relevant for multi-party syndicated loan disputes

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s grounding in international arbitration procedure including multi-party and complex financial disputes through his LLM training and practice at Three Crowns LLP and Dechert LLP positions him to handle the procedural complexity that HKIAC banking arbitrations demand, from consolidation of related syndicated loan claims to emergency arbitrator applications in time-sensitive financial disputes. His knowledge of English governing law, which underpins most Hong Kong-seated financial arbitrations, further strengthens his suitability as a neutral tribunal member.

• Singapore is the primary Asia-Pacific hub for financial arbitration SIAC 2025 Rules provide for emergency arbitrator, streamlined procedure and third-party funding
• Top five foreign users of SIAC in 2024: South Korea, Mainland China, India, Hong Kong and the United States all major sources of banking and financial disputes
• MAS-regulated financial institutions increasingly include SIAC arbitration clauses in cross-border loan agreements, bond issuances and derivative contracts
• Digital asset and fintech disputes: Singapore courts recognised cryptocurrency as property capable of being held on trust (ByBit Fintech v Ho Kai Xin, 2023)
• RCEP-driven financial services growth since 2022 generates disputes in cross-border lending, payment systems and capital markets transactions across ASEAN

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s advanced training at Georgetown University Law Center a premier institution for international arbitration whose faculty includes SIAC Court members combined with his experience at Three Crowns LLP, a leading specialist firm with a robust Asia-Pacific dispute portfolio, equips him to conduct Singapore-seated banking arbitrations with exceptional procedural precision. He possesses a deep, current understanding of the SIAC 2025 Rules, Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (IAA) enforcement architecture, and the complex cross-border financial disputes emerging from ASEAN, India and China trade corridors. This specialized expertise makes him a highly credible, commercially aware choice for tribunals resolving high-value financial and fintech disputes seated in Singapore.

• London is the dominant global seat for banking and financial arbitration English law governs the majority of international loan, derivatives and bond transactions
• New UK Arbitration Act 2025 enhances summary disposal powers, codifies governing law rules and reinforces London’s position as the preferred financial dispute seat
• LCIA and ICC are the preferred institutions for high-value banking disputes; the English Commercial Court provides effective supervisory jurisdiction and interim relief
• ISDA Master Agreement disputes under English law: the English courts and London arbitration are the primary fora for interest rate swap, credit derivative and structured product conflicts
• Islamic finance arbitration: London is a leading non-Muslim centre for Islamic finance disputes, with English law frequently chosen to govern murabaha and sukuk transactions

Harshavardhan Sancheti’s LLM in International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution awarded with distinction and Dean’s List recognition at Georgetown University Law Center combined with hands-on experience at Three Crowns LLP, a specialist international arbitration firm whose practitioners regularly appear before the LCIA and ICC, gives him a thorough grounding in the procedural frameworks that govern London-seated banking disputes. His familiarity with ISDA and LMA documentation, English governing law and the English Commercial Court’s supervisory role makes him a well-prepared, impartial choice for high-value financial arbitrations seated in London.