Disortho exemplifies the dangers of uncritical adoption of foreign jurisprudence in a distinct legal context. By prioritising the lex contractus over the law of the seat, the decision compromises the procedural autonomy of agreements and departs from established Indian and international norms on lex arbitri determination.

In this piece, the author argues that the decision of the SC in Disortho has two main problems. First, the court fails to appropriately decide the seat. Second, the law laid down by the SC is problematic due to its misconceived implementation of party intention and the principle of separability.