Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The 2025 reforms to the UK Arbitration Act represent a pivotal moment for London's status as a preeminent international arbitration center. This article critically examines the substantive and procedural revisions introduced by the 2025 Act, focusing on their intended impacts on legal certainty, arbitral efficiency, arbitrator independence, and the supportive role of UK courts. The reforms refine rather than overhaul the Arbitration Act 1996, aiming to modernize the UK's arbitration legal framework amid growing global competition from other hubs such as Singapore and Paris. By codifying the governing law of arbitration agreements, expanding summary dismissal powers, strengthening arbitrator immunity, and enhancing court powers in support and enforcement, the Act positions London to sustain and potentially expand its attractiveness to international parties seeking arbitration in a reliable, pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

The distinction between the jurisdiction for enforceability of foreign awards and the jurisdiction in challenging it is a blurred line. This distinction assumes critical importance in the light of significant issues to be explored in this note, such as whether the current structure of the conventions allows for the Challenging Jurisdiction of convention awards to be considered concurrent between the “territory where the award is relied upon” & the “territory
where the award is enforced”; what are the current Challenging Jurisdiction as per the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act & its interpretation as per the Indian judiciary, also accepting
the inherent conflict between the rules and methods that various territory use to reach the final
award; what is the effectiveness of the Indian Judicial System in accepting the binding effects
of foreign arbitral awards? Discussing these issues, this note is an attempt to delve into the
factors that retard the successful conclusion of arbitral process and enforcement of awards in
India and highlights the urgency to eliminate excessive court intervention in order that the
objectives of arbitration as a mode of alternative dispute resolution stand achieved.

INTRODUCTION Recent case law shows that challenging an arbitrator's award because of serious irregularity is no easy option. There are limited grounds upon which a challenge can be made. Even if a case falls within one of them, a party will only succeed in its challenge if it can show that it has suffered a substantial injustice. A technical breach will not suffice. Cases which, under the Arbitration Act 1950, would have been remitted back to the arbitrator because of technical misconduct, will now not be remitted because they either do not fall within the limited grounds or because they have not caused substantial injustice. Over three years have elapsed since the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) came into force and there is still little case law on the subject of serious irregularity. Most cases in which it has been alleged have had it as an alternative to either a breach of substantive jurisdiction or an appeal on a point of law. If one of the aims of AA 1996 was to restrict th...

The selection by the parties of the place of arbitration in international commercial arbitration will have a fundamental impact on the determination of rights of the parties under the contracts. Equally fundamental is the parties' selection of the law, both substantive and procedural, which will apply to the determination of those rights. Accordingly, the challenge with respect to the choice of law and choice of forum for international commercial arbitrations is to resolve the tension between these three sources of law: the statute/Model Law; the common law; and the parties' agreement. These three sources will not always be consistent with one with the other, and may not obviously lead to the same conclusions. And even with respect to the arbitrations which are seated in a particular country, the varying dimensions of reconciling the threads of governing law, law of arbitration agreement and curial law has a significant effect in the way the rights and obligations of the parties are dealt with and justice rendered. Also within the seamless legal domestic and international code on the above three laws in an arbitration agreement, there exists varying jurisprudence and legal opinion which poses difficulty in anticipating the consequences of including a choice of law in the contract which may give rise to subsequent differences between the parties. The sphere of International Commercial Arbitration is shrouded with technicalities of law, jurisprudence, rules and codes not to forget the varying contradictions that the presence of different jurisdictions and their set of laws pose. Thus, in the contemporary scheme of things, it is essential to crystallize the basic principles while dealing with choice of law clauses in the contract with the sole of purpose of avoiding unforeseen consequences later. The understanding of principles of party autonomy, conflict of laws and public policy and contractual implications is essential for the parties to have informed consent while including a choice of law clause in the contract.

Section 26 of the arbitration Act provides for the rules concerning default proceedings. Where the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim within prescribed time, and with no between the parties or without sufficient cause, the arbitral tribunal may terminate the proceedings.

The practice of arbitration, in India, traces its origins back to ancient legal systems like the Mitakshara School of Law and further evolved under British colonial enactments, notably the inception of the India Arbitration Act of 1899. This historical continuum has been punctuated by significant developments marked by amendments in 1996, 2015, 2019 and 2021, indicative of India's unwavering commitment to cultivating a robust arbitration culture. Strengthened by this historical foundation and fortified by British legal influences, India, the world's fifth-largest economy, harbors the aspiration to firmly establish itself as a global arbitration hub. The development has been gradual and ongoing with various initiatives, reforms and pivotal judicial decisions being implemented. This paper critically scrutinizes India's potential within the evolving legal landscape, examining its legislative foundation and contemporary ambitions in the global arbitration arena.

Principle (a) "the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense" One of the basic policies of the Act was to ensure that arbitration is a desirable alternative to litigation. This is achieved in a number of ways. First and foremost, Section 33 places a new mandatory duty on arbitrators. This duty is partly a statement of natural justice, corresponding to Article 18 of the Model Law, but also imposes an affirmative duty on arbitrators: it is a direction that arbitrators conduct the arbitration in such a way as to comply with the basic principle in Section 1(a), with respect to speed, cost and efficiency. They must adopt suitable procedures which will be tailored to the specific dispute in question.

International Commercial Arbitration is almost always consensual 2 , it occurs pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. Parties are largely free to draft their arbitration agreements in accordance to their concerns. The terms of arbitration agreements are a product of the parties' interest, negotiations and drafting skills. International arbitration agreements address a number of critical issues. These are (a) the agreement to arbitrate; (b) scope of the disputes submitted to arbitration; (c) use of an arbitration institution and its rules; (d) seat of the arbitration; (e) method of appointment, number and qualifications of the arbitrator; (f) language of arbitration; and (g) choice-of-law clause. Amongst array of clauses elucidated in the agreement, the most vital element is designation of the 'seat' of arbitration. This is the location where the arbitration has its formal legal or juridical seat, and where the arbitral award will formally be made. It is also the place where many or all of the hearings in the arbitration will be conducted, although the tribunal may generally hold hearings elsewhere for reasons of convenience. A number of legal and practical consequences follow from selection of an arbitral seat, making it one of the most important aspect of each international arbitration agreement. DEFINING ARBITRAL SEAT An Arbitral Seat is the location selected by the parties as the legal or juridical home or place of the arbitration. 3 It is intended to be the centre of gravity of the arbitration. Scholars have appreciated the concept of the arbitral seat (alternatively referred to as the "place of

Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution is Kenya's principal law governing commercial arbitration. Secondary rules are extracted from legislation, ratified treaties, applicable UK law, and customary norms. One of the overriding goals of commercial arbitration in Kenya is the finality of arbitration proceedings. This means an arbitrator's decision remains final unless an aggrieved party has narrow grounds to challenge the ruling in a judicial forum. One of these limited grounds is a violation of the public policy doctrine, which may be unconstitutional because it contradicts the supreme nature of the  2010 constitution. Even if one accepts that the public policy doctrine is compatible with the 2010 constitution, the Arbitration Act does not define public policy concerns in the context of Kenyan commercial arbitration. The current paper charts a way forward past this impasse.

A thumb-rule for drafting any arbitration clause is to mention the seat of arbitration in the clearest fashion possible. When this thumb-rule is breached, the burden of determining or discerning a seat befalls an arbiter, be it a court or a tribunal. This paper aims to explain the ramifications of such an exercise by analysing English and Indian jurisprudence on the discernment of seat in such ‘seatless’ clauses. It demonstrates the internal conflicts within the decisions in each of these jurisdictions, attributing the conflicts in England to a ‘London bias’ and the conflicts in India to the perversity of the crude approaches taken by the Indian courts., The paper proposes a 10-part test that can function as a basic framework for the resolution of such conflicts in the future regarding discernment of ‘seat’. The paper also examines the utility of this test against the English and Indian judgments already discussed.

Principle (a) "the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense" One of the basic policies of the Act was to ensure that arbitration is a desirable alternative to litigation. This is achieved in a number of ways. First and foremost, Section 33 places a new mandatory duty on arbitrators. This duty is partly a statement of natural justice, corresponding to Article 18 of the Model Law, but also imposes an affirmative duty on arbitrators: it is a direction that arbitrators conduct the arbitration in such a way as to comply with the basic principle in Section 1(a), with respect to speed, cost and efficiency. They must adopt suitable procedures which will be tailored to the specific dispute in question.

The new Arbitration Act, No-2 of 2020 (“the Act”) enacted in February has been assented to by the
President and shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may, by notice publish in the
Government Gazette. The Act ntroduces additona options fordisputes resolution by way of
adjudicaton and conciliation both in civil and certain crminal matters,prevously not available under
the repealed Arbitration Act Cap. 15 (R.E.2002)(“Repealed Act”). Selected Important  Tanzania cases of Arbitration are explained in this Article

Arbitration law stands on two plinths: party autonomy and finality of award. If these two plinths are distorted by judicial intervention, arbitration law will fail to realise its ultimate objective and will lose its essence. Indian law on arbitration has evolved from indiscriminate judicial intervention, established in the Colonial Act and the successive 1961 legislation, to a more mature Act based on the Model Law; this signifies the importance of minimal judicial interference. Public policy, as a general concept and as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award, is difficult to define. Judicial decisions, regarding the scope of the public policy, that permit near limitless judicial review of the arbitral award serve as a lethal blow to international commercial arbitration. This article examines these repercussions and suggests some reforms to the present arbitration law to enable the pillars of arbitration law to remain intact.

In Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma, the Supreme Court of India has comprehensively laid down the law relating to setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contains seven grounds for setting aside arbitral awards. The Supreme Court has drawn "principles" from previous cases and has laid down certain unenumerated grounds for setting aside arbitral awards Recently the Supreme Court of India in Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma & Co., New Delhi 1 has held decided on the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act" or "1996 Act") by which the Court could set aside an arbitral award. This case is significant because it comprehensively lays down the unenumerated grounds for setting aside arbitral awards and determines the scope of Section 34(2) of the Act. Facts and background: The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had contracted with R.S. Sharma (Claimant) in April 1990 "for carrying the out work for development of land". The parties had agreed to be bound by a letter dated 10.4.1990 of the claimant-to the Chief Engineer, DDA, wherein both parties had to abide by the conditions mentioned in the letter. One of the conditions in the said letter was that the Quartz stone to be supplied by the Claimant had to be in accordance with the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) specifications and the specifications mentioned in the tender document. However, stone supplied by the Claimant was not as per CPWD specifications and specifications mentioned in the tender document. Therefore, stones were brought from Nooh, Haryana which satisfied those specifications. Disputes arose between the Claimant and the DDA on, inter alia, the * B.A. (Law) LL.B.

International Commercial Arbitration is almost always consensual 2 , it occurs pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. Parties are largely free to draft their arbitration agreements in accordance to their concerns. The terms of arbitration agreements are a product of the parties' interest, negotiations and drafting skills. International arbitration agreements address a number of critical issues. These are (a) the agreement to arbitrate; (b) scope of the disputes submitted to arbitration; (c) use of an arbitration institution and its rules; (d) seat of the arbitration; (e) method of appointment, number and qualifications of the arbitrator; (f) language of arbitration; and (g) choice-of-law clause. Amongst array of clauses elucidated in the agreement, the most vital element is designation of the 'seat' of arbitration. This is the location where the arbitration has its formal legal or juridical seat, and where the arbitral award will formally be made. It is also the place where many or all of the hearings in the arbitration will be conducted, although the tribunal may generally hold hearings elsewhere for reasons of convenience. A number of legal and practical consequences follow from selection of an arbitral seat, making it one of the most important aspect of each international arbitration agreement. DEFINING ARBITRAL SEAT An Arbitral Seat is the location selected by the parties as the legal or juridical home or place of the arbitration. 3 It is intended to be the centre of gravity of the arbitration. Scholars have appreciated the concept of the arbitral seat (alternatively referred to as the "place of

The present paper conceptually discusses on the importance of The arbitration and conciliation Act, 2019 and its impact on business and commercial dispute settlement in Indian scenario and also it analyses how the Act positively impact on ease of doing business and on CMA profession in India.

The article is a legislative comment on the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Bill introduced in 2019 keeping in mind Arbitration in the International context and comparing it with the Amendment Act and the Legislature in Indian context. <br> The new 2019 amendment, envisages major changes which will be discussed in this Article vis-à-vis International Arbitration. The article critically analyzes some of its provisions to understand if it is indeed a step in the right direction for India to become a hub for international arbitration. The analysis and comments in this article are solely and exclusively from the standpoint of international<br> arbitration. <br> Thus, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in India needs to be looked at in reference to both international and principles of Indian law. The uncertainty would arise mainly in context of the rules which the parties frame in the course of arbitration, which have not been codified. Thus, this practice must...

The Kenyan arbitration law (the “Act”) , like the Model Law , advocates for finality of arbitral awards. As such, there are very limited instances under the law that an arbitral award could be challenged. Much of the literature and court decisions have dwelt on the setting aside procedure under section 35 of the Act  and the right of appeal against the decision of the High Court under section 35 of the Act  but there is less focus on challenging an arbitral award through an appeal to the court both in terms of court decisions  and literature. This is attributable to two factors:  most arbitration agreements provide that an arbitral award ensuing from arbitration shall be final, and unlike the setting aside procedure, which is allowed as of right under the Act, the appeal process against an arbitral award is not automatic; it is consensual  meaning that unless parties have agreed to prefer an appeal, no appeal on merits lies against an arbitral award. 
Unlike other jurisdictions which permit appeals against arbitral awards through leave of the court, no such procedure exists under the Act. Interventionists argue that the absence of an appellate mechanism, other than with the agreement of the parties, is undesirable due to various reasons including the fact that it stifles the growth of commercial law, and because arbitrators just like judges are not infallible and there should be an appellate mechanism to correct an obvious error of

The Public Policy doctrine is an unruly horse in India, when it comes to the enforcement of domestic and foreign awards. The main objective behind choosing this topic was to shed light on how public policy has been used by the losing party, in delaying the enforcement of arbitral award, which hampers the whole objective of arbitration. Though one may argue that the 2015 Amendment Act has settled all the controversies regarding public policy and enforcement of arbitral award, the author is of the opinion that there are still some areas that are left unexplored by the Arbitration Amendment Act. The paper primarily focuses on the changing trend of public policy with respect to arbitration in India. In addition, the author has compared the doctrine of public policy in India with that of countries such as France, Russia, United Kingdom and U.SA. The most important contribution of this research paper is that it analyses the validity of patent illegality in domestic arbitration.

The subject of the article research is the concept of arbitral award and the enforcement of arbitration awards in the republic of iraq, the methodological basis of the article research is the controversial approach to the problem under consideration using general and private methods of scientific knowledge, formal legal, and logical, socio-psychological, system analysis. In the process of research the achievements of the sciences of civil, private international, iraqi law, and civil procedure. This study is divided into two parts: the first part presents the concept of arbitral award, and the second part presents the enforcement of arbitration award in the republic of iraq.

In 1996, India adopted the Arbitration and Conciliation Law and it is also a party to the New York Convention. Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908, also provides that India must go ahead with the path of Alternative Dispute Resolution system. The parties are asked to settle disputes outside the Court and the Courts fully support arbitration proceedings in India.
Even after having an edge over the ad-hoc form of arbitration in India the parties do not prefer the institutional arbitration. There are certain reasons why these institutions are not gaining popularity, there is need to change the structure these institutions are working in India. The 2019 Amendment Act is a step forward in promoting the institutional arbitration in India along with streamlining and overcoming some of the challenges faced after the enactment of the 2015 Amendment Act.

Often, in an agreement signed between two parties, there exists a clause to opt for arbitration in case of any dispute. “The case of M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited v. T. Thankam  talks about a certain circumstance, wherein one of the parties institutes a civil suit against the other, even though there existed a certain clause for arbitration in case of any dispute between the parties. The court held that such approaches would only delay the resolution of disputes and complicate the redressal of grievance and of course unnecessarily increase the pendency in the court. The purpose of this study is to analyze in detail, the validity of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with reference to the case of M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited v. T. Thankam.” The drift towards arbitration in the current times is rapidly increasing and thus it is even more important to understand the concepts in the right manner.

The legislative attempt by the Government to amend The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, has rendered a laudatory status from the eyes of an overburdened judiciary. The 2019 (Amendment) Act has conferred a better and more conspicuous self-administering status to arbitration systems while subserving its practice in India.

"At the forefront of these different approaches … lies an internal contradiction. Arbitration law must constantly grapple with this contradiction. It is within the discretion of the legislator to decide where to draw the line between party autonomy and legal certainty." [Section C III, final paragraph]. This essay seeks to draw on the often complementary, but contrasting principles of party autonomy and legal certainty to distinguish the English and German legislators' approach to the drafting of its national arbitration laws. Emphasis is on how they have differently defined the boundaries of the relationship between the courts and arbitral tribunals. Despite attempts by a 1985 United Nations Commission to harmonise the widely differing arbitration laws in Europe through the UNCITRAL2 Model Law, national systems have still sought to maintain certain features of their own arbitration rules in order to attract international parties to arbitrate in their countries. This author concludes that whilst English Arbitration Law provides more legal certainty for parties concluding arbitration agreements, an almost verbatim adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law in Germany gives parties freedom to fill gaps in the substantive law by their own agreement.

ABSTRACT
UNCITRAL model is a model that was developed in order to sort out the disputes between the two parties. These parties can be of national or international nature. It is because of the inherent nature of the parties that this model law was developed so that a new law is brought into working transcending the national boundaries. The parties usually don’t accept the respective national laws because they don’t trust them, which is a natural thing. Thus the UNCITRAL came as a bridge to govern the two distinct parties with a common law. A beautiful aspect of this law and why it evolved into so much of acclaim within a short span of time is because of the presence of the “Party Autonomy” concept in it. This thing gives the parties right to choose everything from the laws, the arbitrators and thus the desired outcomes; the awards. This paper tries to look into the aspect of Party Autonomy from the view point of different sections of the UNCITRAL model and its correlation with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The use of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution is becoming widespread. As a matter of fact, when it comes to a private or an international contract, arbitration proves almost ineluctable. One of the most important reasons for choosing arbitration is its effectiveness in obtaining a final and binding decision on a dispute or series of disputes without reference to the long and often expensive court proceedings.

Alternative Dispute Resolution methods like Arbitration has gained popularity in developed countries in last few decades as an efficient method of solving disputes especially in corporate cases. But, even after being exposed to this more than five decades ago, arbitration or ADR has very little success in India. In this paper, we tried to understand the obstacles in the path of success of ADR in India , the feasibility of ADR methods keeping in mind the Indian context and tried to suggest possible ways to make ADR initiatives sustainable in the long run.

CHAPTER VII of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 encompasses Section 34, which covers Recourse against Arbitral Award. Section 34 provides that parties can move an application to court for setting aside an award. The present Act consists of three sections, namely Section 34, 37(2) and 14(2) which essentially empowers the court to intrude in the matter.  The courts in general cannot replace their own interpretation in place

The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, originally enacted in 1996 based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, underwent a much-anticipated significant change in 2015. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 introduced a plethora of changes to the existing arbitration framework in India, which were confirmed by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, While the impact of the changes introduced by these amendments can only be assessed once their judicial interpretation is ascertained, this paper seeks to assess how they are likely to be perceived by the international arbitration community and if they are in sync with their objective of remedying some of the vagaries of the Indian arbitration framework that render arbitrating in India less predictable and overall more complex than desired.

This paper deals with a comparative study of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights in Malaysia and India. The provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights plays an important role in preserving and defending the fundamental rights in the Constitution. Hence, the said provision is better catered for under the Constitution than under an ordinary legislation to ensure strength in upholding fundamental rights. In Malaysia, the provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights provided under an ordinary legislation. Conversely, Indian Constitution has provided such remedies under Article 32 and 226. The Indian Courts have given a wide construction to Article 32 and 226 of which the provisions give powers to the Supreme Court as well as High Courts to issue any order, including any order in the nature of the common law prerogative writs, for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In addition, the Indian High Court has jurisdiction to issue writs not only for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights, but also to enforce any legal rights because of the words „for any other purposes‟ in Article 226. On this paper the writer makes a comparative study on the remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights between Malaysia and India to find out more information regarding the position of the law given in both the countries. At the end of the paper, the writer will make recommendations for the purpose of improving the law concerns.

India is a large and a diverse country. It had opened its market in the early 1990s and has embraced the good and the bad of the globalisation process. The globalisation trends as well as the large population exert tremendous pressure on India?s resources and Institutions including the Judicial System. In this scenario the ADR mechanism especially arbitration has proved to be a success resort to dispute resolution. India has acknowledged this fact and has a specific legislation governing the arbitration regime called the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is based upon the UNCITRAL Model Law. India is also a signatory to the New York convention on Recognition and Enforcement of arbitral awards. Acutely conscious of the pace which India should have at international counterparts, it has amended the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015. The amendments were much needed as India was at a cross road, pushing forward a permissive party autonomy regime where courts were to play a minimum interventionist role with a frame work of making, challenging and enforcing awards. Theoretically the system was workable but on a practical front it had become cumbersome. The changes brought by the new legislation are heartening and intents to make India a desired destination for International Commercial Arbitration. The Article will cover the major pro-arbitration changes brought in by the new amended legislation and a critical review of the gaps still left. The article would also try to analyse what efforts are yet to be undertaken to reach to the desired platform which is the shift from Ad-hocism towards Institutionalisation.

The realisation that foreign arbitral awards needed a framework for international enforcement resulted in the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which amongst other things included grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
This paper attempts to examine the use of “public policy” as a ground to refuse enforcement and review the status and scope of the defence when raised in different countries. It concludes with the position that though there are certain countries that have interpreted the public policy defence in an expansive and possibly protectionist manner to refuse enforcement, this is not a trend that is gaining ground. Rather, the restrictive and pro-enforcement definitions of public policy espoused by most countries is effectively watering down the potency of the public policy defence as a means of refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

The arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 dealt with domestic and international arbitration. And during the enforcement of the foreign awards in India, it shall satisfy the conditions specified in Section 11 of the code of civil procedure 1908.
And one of the conditions mentioned in the section is public policy i.e. that the judgment / awards shall not be contradict to the public policy of India.
And in this project I discuss about the public policy of India for the challenges of the foreign awards.

International Commercial Arbitration has become the preferred method of resolving international commercial disputes. Due to this preference, investment and trade have increased. Over the years institutional rules have been preferred over ad hoc arbitration rules. This is despite the fact that most institutional rules are based on the model UNCITRAL Law, which is ad hoc by design. The nature of arbitration is that it allows parties to decide how disputes will be governed with expectations of certainty in the process and desired outcome of disputes. With the support of the proposed arbitration law and centre in Malawi, commercial activity is likely to be bolstered. This is due to the ability of arbitration to effectively determine cross-border disputes which has generated trust from commercial parties. Although there has been a shift from litigation to international commercial arbitration, supported by strengthening of legal frameworks, commercial parties are still in the quest for certainty.

This article critically examines the recent ruling of the Indian Supreme Court in Citation Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corporation. The court has held that it has the jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators in all international commercial arbitrations irrespective of the substantive law governing the arbitration agreement and the seat of arbitration. This article demonstrates that the ruling is based on a misconstruction of Bhatia International Ltd. v. Bulk Trading S.A and advises the foreign parties to expressly exclude all intrusive provisions of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

SHARE Facebook Twitter I had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a builder for development of my plot. There was an arbitration clause in this MOU which required that any unresolved dispute between the two parties relating to implementation or breach of the MOU would be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, ultimately, our MOU could not be converted into a final agreement for developing my plot, and it was terminated since there were certain serious differences between the two parties. At this stage, both parties have incurred certain expenses. Now, the builder wants to refer the dispute to arbitration on the basis of the above arbitration clause in the MOU. But, this MOU has already been terminated and is no more valid. Is it possible for the builder to force arbitration on the basis of the said MOU which is no more valid and which has already been terminated? Answer: Unfortunately for you, the answer is " yes ". The arbitration clause in the MOU can be enforced even though the MOU in which it was contained has been terminated or is no more valid. In fact, the facts of your case are covered directly under some Supreme Court judgments, as mentioned below. In the case of Everest Holding Ltd. v. Shyam Kumar Shrivastava, (2008) 16 SCC 774, in respect of an arbitration clause in a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) which had already been terminated, the Supreme Court observed as under: " Though the JVA may have been terminated and cancelled as stated but it was a valid JVA containing a valid arbitration agreement for settlement of disputes arising out of or in relation to the subject-matter of the JVA. The argument of the respondent that the disputes cannot be referred to the arbitration as the agreement is not in existence as of today is therefore devoid of merit. "