(1) This Act maybe called the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (2) It extends to the whole of India: Provided that Parts I, III and IV shall extend to the State of. further to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in. commence- menil. 26 of Amendment of section 2. 2. In the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the principal. Act), in section 2,-.
|Language:||English, French, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||24.63 MB|
|PDF File Size:||12.13 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
PDF | This is a paper comparing the sections of the old and new Arbitration Act in light of landmark judgements of the Supreme Court of India. or impossibility to act. 11 Appointment of substitute arbitrator. Jurisdiction of by arbitration and conciliation; and to make applicable the Convention on the. A party who knows of any provision of this Act from which the parties may derogate or of any requirement under the arbitration agreement which has not been.
Arbitration and Conciliation in Uganda T.
In the event of death, the personal representative of the deceased takes over s. Impartiality and independence 2. The award, in writing, shall state the reasons upon which it is based.
Lack of capacity of one of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement 2. Invalid arbitration agreement 3. Lack of notice of appointment of arbitrator 4.
The proceedings were beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement 5. The tribunal was wrongly constituted 6.
The parties need not meet each other. They can be one or more.
Parties are free to choose any mode of dispute settlement. The NCLT admitted the case ruling that the petition filed under Section 34 by the debtor was irrelevant for the reason that the claim stood admitted.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, can be invoked in respect of an operational debt where an arbitral award has been passed against the operational debtor, which has not yet been finally adjudicated upon.
The Supreme Court inter alia held that filing of a petition under Section 34 of the Act against an arbitral award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 and 37 has taken place.
The Court further held that: " It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation. In such cases also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Section of the Code would apply in case there is an inconsistency between the Code and the Arbitration Act. In the present case, we see no such inconsistency.
On the contrary, the Award passed under the Arbitration Act together with the steps taken for its challenge would only make it clear that the operational debt, in the present case, happens to be a disputed one. Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. October 23, provides that an application to set aside arbitral award shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.
In the present case, a Section 34 petition challenging an award was filed on Despite the coming into force of Section 34 5 , the common ground between the parties was that no prior notice was issued to the other party in terms of the said Section, nor was the application under Section 34 accompanied by an affidavit that was required by the said sub-section.
In the end, it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 34 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is mandatory or directory.
Reform of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act
The Supreme Court inter alia held that to construe such a provision as being mandatory would defeat the advancement of justice as it would provide the consequence of dismissing an application filed without adhering to the requirements of Section 34 5 , thereby scuttling the process of justice by burying the element of fairness. It was further held that the provision is procedural, the object behind which is to dispose of applications under Section 34 expeditiously.
The Court however added that it shall be the endeavour of every Court in which a Section 34 application is filed, to stick to the time limit of one year from the date of service of notice to the opposite party by the applicant, or by the Court, as the case may be.
In case the Court issues notice after the period mentioned in Section 34 3 has elapsed, every Court shall endeavour to dispose of the Section 34 application within a period of one year from the date of filing of the said application.
BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. A sole arbitrator was appointed, who delivered two arbitral awards dated On These were resisted by two chamber summons filed by the appellants dated Would Section 36, as substituted, apply to such petitions? Section 36, prior to the Amendment Act, is only a clog on the right of the decree-holder, who cannot execute the award in his favour, unless the conditions of this section are met.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
This does not mean that there is a corresponding right in the judgment-debtor to stay the execution of such an award. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter.
Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.Based on common law, the tribunal has implied powers to grant the reliefs sought by the successful party if they can be granted by a High Court. In plethora of judgments, the Indian Judiciary has time and again widened the purview of public policy.
Permitted Grounds of Challenge for setting aside award and Public Policy: Section 5 1 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Manik Reddy and Ors. General Electric Co. Enforcement of arbitral awards Section 34 of the Act, which, as set out above, deals with challenges to arbitral awards, provided for awards to be challenged based on public policy, which had been judicially interpreted to include patent illegality.