Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
While adressing an event which is Arbitration International Conference organised by Nani Palkhiwala Arbitration Center , Justice Indu Malhotra opined about the recent amendment in Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 , she mentioned that according to her there is no further need of any modification in the Section. She said that to her beleive there is more need of appointment of better arbitrators who has deep and ample knowledge of the gamut of subjects of Arbitration than widening the scope of judicial review. She mentioned that the process is needed to be made more effective , the troubles which come accross should be solved by understanding the kin in the case but not by turning back again to the court. It is very necessary in her opinion to further not widen the scope of this Section 34 as it will be then against the spirit of the whole Act. While adressing her thoughts in the 12 th International Arbitration Conference in New Delhi she also spoke about the multi tier Arbitration system and opined that, our Act does not have provision for multi tier autonomy but it provides for procedural autonomy which is with respects to arbitral process. She also mentioned about an interesting case upheld by Supreme Court with respect to party autonomy , which was in the case of Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper ltd, in this case she mentioned about the different tier conditions which arose , as she said" In first instance it appeared to be a case of Domestic Arbitration and in second tier it was an appeal in ICC to its appeal to its London seat which made ab international award." She showed her concern for not having permanent arbitration institutions and said " we have to move away from the era of ad hoc arbitrations so that the one internal review can take place in the arbitral process and the awrd which is passed in the second tier is the final award".
She also discussed about the Act in force before the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 which was the Act in 1940 , in that regime there was a separate Act for dealing with foreign awards and both the issues were kept different as in Singapore in present. She referred to the cases of Bhatia and Venture Global to solidify a point which is there has to be two different acts, one dealing with the domestic arbitration and the other dealing with foreign awards as both regimes are completely different and consists of two different parts , which might create confusions while deciding a matter as while reffering to one part arbitrators may refer to the other part and it will lead to more complexity in the decision. She also mentioned that Section 34 is not of a nature of appellate jurisdiction but of supervisiory in nature. She also described about the process in which when the ard decided by the the arbitrator can be set aside by the court . According to her, arbitrator is the master of evidence and court can not scrutinize the award decided as it was sitting in appeal.
86540
103860
630
114
59824