India: A Dispute Resolution: Bengaluru-based Overview
Once known as the ‘Garden City’ and “pensioner’s paradise”, Bengaluru is home to India’s information technology boom and as a result has evolved into a significant legal market with a very active legal dispute resolution community. As business activity in the city has grown, so has the demand for efficient, accessible and technologically progressive mechanisms for resolving disputes. The city’s dispute resolution ecosystem is supported by a well-structured judiciary, specialised commercial courts, an expanding arbitration framework and a strong emphasis on alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Bengaluru boasts a robust and efficient network of city civil and commercial courts which operate under the supervision of the High Court to ensure speedy disposal, accessible justice and effective case management.
Unlike the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, which exercise original jurisdiction over certain civil matters, the High Court of Karnataka primarily exercises supervisory and appellate jurisdiction. Apart from its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, election petitions etc, it does not function as a court of first instance for civil disputes. Instead, civil matters originate in the trial courts, namely the City Civil and Sessions Court, and the Commercial Court, depending on the subject matter of the dispute. This structure enables the High Court to focus on appellate scrutiny, constitutional challenges and judicial review while trial courts handle evidence, factual adjudication and initial applications.
A Robust Trial Court System
Bengaluru’s trial court system is both extensive and specialised. The City Civil and Sessions Court exercises jurisdiction over a wide range of civil disputes, including property matters, contractual disputes and injunction applications, while specialised Family Courts adjudicate family, matrimonial and custody matters. Judges are trained to manage high case volumes while ensuring compliance with procedural law.
In parallel, the Commercial Courts, established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, address disputes arising from commercial transactions, including shareholder agreements, joint venture agreements, distribution and consultancy agreements, construction contracts, insurance, contracts of agency, etc. These courts are presided over by judges well versed in commercial law and equipped to handle matters requiring technical understanding and swift adjudication. The objective is to enhance speed without compromising on quality.
Progressiveness
Bengaluru’s dispute resolution system has been a frontrunner in integrating technology into court processes. Long before the nationwide transition to virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court of Karnataka had embraced videoconferencing for recording evidence. One landmark case that shaped judicial use of technology was 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd., AIR 2003 KANT 148. The issue before the High Court was whether evidence could be recorded via videoconferencing, as key witnesses were based in the United States. Justice Gururajan delivered a progressive judgment, interpreting the terms “attendance” and “mechanically” under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to include videoconferencing. The Court recognised that technology is a tool that should aid, rather than hinder, the administration of justice. Importantly, the judgment also laid down safeguards to prevent misuse : ensuring the integrity of the testimony, verifying the identity of witnesses, and maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process. This pioneering approach paved the way for wider adoption of technology in courtrooms across India, and positioned Karnataka as a leader in judicial innovation.
The High Court of Karnataka has also been at the forefront in cases involving cross-border litigation. A landmark illustration is Airbus Industries v Laura Howell Linton, ILR 1994 KAR 1370. The dispute arose after an Indian Airlines aircraft manufactured by Airbus Industries crashed in Bengaluru, causing loss of life and injuries to passengers. Several victims were British and American citizens who initiated proceedings in Texas and the United Kingdom. Airbus approached the district court in Bengaluru seeking an injunction restraining these litigants from pursuing actions in foreign courts. When the district court dismissed the application, Airbus appealed to the High Court. In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court granted an anti-suit injunction, directing that the parties pursue the matter in Bengaluru and instructing the district court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis for expeditious disposal. The Court reasoned that justice was equally accessible in India, and that many victims or their families may be unable to join or contest proceedings in the United States or UK due to financial and logistical constraints. Centralising the litigation in Bengaluru enhanced access to justice, preserved judicial economy and ensured that all affected parties could meaningfully participate. This decision reflects the High Court’s willingness to engage with international litigation principles while prioritising fairness, accessibility and pragmatic justice.
Strengthening the Arbitration Ecosystem
Arbitration has become one of the preferred methods for resolving commercial and contractual disputes in Bengaluru. To support this, the Karnataka Arbitration and Conciliation Centre was established by the High Court of Karnataka. The Centre provides a panel of trained arbitrators, modern hearing rooms and video-conferencing facilities, creating a professional environment suited for domestic and international arbitrations.
The Centre’s development aligns with India’s broader policy shift toward strengthening arbitration as a viable alternative to litigation. In addition, the Commercial Courts in Bengaluru enhance the arbitration ecosystem through timely intervention in matters requiring court support – particularly under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers courts to grant urgent interim relief such as injunctions, asset preservation orders or security for costs. This co-operation between courts and arbitral institutions ensures that arbitration proceedings are both efficient and enforceable.
Emphasis on Mediation and Lok Adalats
Recognising that not all disputes require formal adjudication, the High Court of Karnataka actively promotes mediation and conciliatory mechanisms. Mediation drives organised by the High Court encourage parties to arrive at mutually agreeable settlements, reducing litigation burdens while fostering relationships and cost-effective solutions.
Similarly, Lok Adalats (people’s courts) that adopt streamlined and conciliatory procedures play a critical role in Bengaluru’s dispute resolution landscape. Organised frequently and routinely by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, these forums facilitate compromise and provide final, binding settlements without the rigidity of formal trials. They enable the swift resolution of large volumes of cases, particularly those involving small claims, family disputes, motor accident compensation and other matters suitable for amicable settlement.
Conclusion
Bengaluru’s dispute resolution landscape is characterised by a strong judicial infrastructure, specialised commercial adjudication, technological innovation and a growing emphasis on arbitration and other ADR mechanisms. The combination of robust trial courts, a progressive High Court, advanced institutional arbitration facilities and widespread adoption of mediation positions Bengaluru as a model jurisdiction for efficient and modern dispute resolution in India.