With the changing scenario of arbitration processes, the President of India has further enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Ordinance) by adding amends to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. This ordinance brings forty that all the stakeholders shall be getting an opportunity to seek unconditional stay of enforcement of arbitral awards where the underlying arbitration agreement or making of the arbitral award is believed to be induced by fraud or corruption. The Ordinance will be beneficial in cases where inherent illegality by fraud or corruption has been ‘prima-facie’ shown in court. However, it will be interesting to see how courts interpret the burden of proving a ‘prima-facie’ case of corruption or fraud.
In the world of International Arbitration, one could only see the space is being dominated by stereotypical white men and the substantial absence of diversity. In 2015, the “Arbitration Pledge” was drawn up in acknowledgment of the lack of women in arbitral tribunals by representatives of the international arbitration community. But it’s worth remembering that the absence of diversity goes beyond gender, cultural and geographical diversity are missing too. In this new age, where women all over the globe are fighting for equality and equity, a diverse board in arbitration will improve the diverse viewpoints will contribute to better choices and the consistency of decision making.
Authored by Roudro Mukhopadhyay, OP Jindal University.
COVID 19 had a bad impact on all the works of private individuals as well as government. It has changed the working pattern and style of all the business. The impact of the virus is so dangerous that the government has cancelled all the schemes and started funding to cure people from the virus. The courts have also started working digitally. Despite of this advanced technology, they are facing some of the issues like digital glitch, lawyers and judges are facing problems during the case hearing. Due to these many amendments have been made in the Arbitration Rules and Guidelines. COVID-19, a virus called Coronavirus has vitiated the whole world. It was first detected in China’s city Wuhan in December & then very rapidly it spread its root throughout the Globe. COVID-19 outbreak which greatly affected the entire world has been declared a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO).
Authored by Kavya Gopal, Prestige Institute of Management
The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court of its decision to accept the award of the International Arbitration Tribunal which ruled that the Italian Marines involved in the Enrica Lexi case should be tried by Italy and not India. New Delhi may seek compensation for the deaths of fishermen killed in the incident off the coast of Kerala. Two Italian Marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvadore Girone, killed two crew members on an Indian fishing boat. The case has led to controversy between the two countries. Its spatial waters. Italy claimed that the ship had hoisted the Italian flag, and that the crew could be prosecuted under Italian law. The High Court later allowed the two Marines to leave the country and fly to Italy. Following a court adjournment on August 26, 2015, Italy took the matter to an international tribunal set up under the UN Convention on the Seas in The Hague, the Netherlands. The tribunal ruled on May 21, 2020 that Italian Marines would try but India could seek compensation for the deaths of fishermen. In the latest application filed in the court on Thursday, the Central Government, through the Standing Council, BV Balaram Das, decided to accept the tribunal award final and without any appeal. The application asked the court to close the trial, which has been pending since 2012.
The year 2012 saw a momentous decision by the Supreme Court of India, a five-judge bench overruled the former disputatious judgment pronounced in the Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA in the verdict of Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Technical Services. In its ruling, the bench confined the scope of intervention by the Indian courts in the process of arbitration which are conducted outside the jurisdictional boundaries of India by leaving out the applicability of Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the Bhatia, the Supreme Court reasoned on the issue on whether it could place to a request for episodic measures to an Indian court in the process of ICC arbitration which has its seat in Paris (outside the Indian territory). The appellant in Bhatia contented on the grounds that the Indian court had no competent jurisdiction and that Part I of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, did not apply to arbitration processes in which the seat of arbitration is outside the territorial boundary of India.
Authored by Arunav Bhattacharjya and Parvez Rahman, NLUJAA, Assam.
With globalization and advances in commerce and technology, the need for legal systems to
adapt to mechanisms for enhancing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods continues to grow. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing number of cases being
handled by the traditional courts and the attendant delays, the perception that ADR imposes
lower costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality and the desire of some parties to have
greater control over the selection of the individuals who will settle their dispute on the basis of
competence, experience and absence of bias. 2 In dealing with guerrilla tactics in International Arbitration, it is paramount to first and foremost
understand the consequence of the phrase “international arbitration” in relation to the subject of discourse, especially as terms in common use often elude definition.3. t is sometimes said that every arbitration is a national arbitration in the sense that it must be held at a given place and is accordingly, subject to the national law of that place. Whilst this may be an interesting topic for debate, in practice, it is customary to distinguish between arbitrations which are purely
“domestic” and those which are “international”.
International arbitration is similar to domestic court litigation, but instead of taking place before a domestic court it takes place before private adjudicators known as arbitrators. It is a consensual, neutral, binding, private and enforceable means of international dispute resolution, which is typically faster and less expensive than domestic court proceedings.
The legal framework surrounding, The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force in India. The changes in Amendment Act, 2019 has stepped in to promote institutional arbitration in India and to make India a hub of domestic and international arbitration by facilitating the resolution of commercial disputes by arbitration making India an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The Indian legislature had initiated the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which received the assent of the President of India on December 31st, 2015 and that came into force on October 23rd, 2015 with significant changes to the Arbitration Act and the initial step taken to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to provide speedy and effective resolution of disputes through arbitration or conciliation. The article shares an overview of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 by discussing the role of domestic and international arbitration. The article explains the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India with a view of the amendment act that broadly deals with various aspects and features of Indian arbitration. In this context, it indicates the effects of arbitral proceedings that commenced before the 2015 amendment act. It likewise illustrates the matter of Hindustan Construction Company by applying the 2019 amendment act. It also discusses the impact on businesses, in general, inserting the 2019 amendment act while proposing the necessary reforms and future concerns
The determination of settling disputes between countries is known as International Arbitration. The fundamental purpose of dispute resolution is linked to the drive of the United Nations ‘to maintain international peace and security. There are several important international dispute cases in the history viz., the Alabama Claims, Jay Treaty (1974), the Rainbow warrior case etc. This article deals about one such Landmark case namely, “Rainbow Warrior” case of 1982 which outlines how the bombing of the ship was executed by the French intelligence agents, the legal violations associated with this dispute, how the arbitration process resolved the dispute between the countries.
In the ages of globalization with increasing cross-border transactions, international commercial arbitration has also boomed. Though it is efficient and time-saving compared to the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms the large costs attached to it cannot be ignored. Its solution comes in the form of “Third Party Funding”, “Third-party funding (hereinafter TPF) arises when a third party (the Funder) provides financial support to another party (the Funded Party) to pursue or defend an arbitration or related court or mediation proceedings. Such financial support is provided in exchange for an economic interest in any favorable award or outcome that may ensue.”It is achieved by means of third party contracts (hereinafter) “it is an agreement by a Party to dispute Resolution Proceedings with a TPF entity for the funding of all or portion of the costs of the proceedings in exchange for a share or other interest in the proceeds of the proceedings to which the party may become entitled”.
Authored by Ayush Garg & Mridul Pateriya, Gujarat National Law University.