Chairperson: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Judge, Supreme Court of India
He explained the Domestic and Foreign Arbitration from the statute and suggested many changes which are sought to be brought in by way of amendments . He reinforced the need for speedy disposal of arbitration proceedings, expeditious enforcement of award and Pro-enforcement regime.
Mr. Pankaj Jain (Co-Chair)
Mr. Jain focused on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). He explained that ADR is a process which is qualitatively different from other disputes in so far as they are settled in a manner argued by the parties with the help of a neutral party. He emphasised the reasons which prompt preferences to mediation over arbitration including the cost effectiveness and expedient disposal.
Speaker 1: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Addl. Solicitor General, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Banerjee gave an enlightening overview of the Experience on Overseas Arbitration.
He explained why domestic arbitration is different from foreign one, by explaining that according to him the main difference is that the international arbitration is systematic and technological and also it is based on written documents and conducted by a good chosen team of counsels.
Speaker 2: Shyamala Pappu, Former Member, Law Commission of India
The Hon’ble former member law commission of India, in her speech stated that an award is a bad law in the court in the absence of arbitration. The court should promote arbitration, and for that the attitude of the people has to be changed. Amendment should be brought in Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the parties must be asked to mediate and mediation report must be produced, time frame should be fixed and the mediation cell should be restricted to decide the case within that time frame. She also dealt with ‘overseas arbitration’, stating that lot of difficulties emerge in such arbitration and the biggest failure in such cases is the implementation of award, public policy of the particular state needs to be taken into account as the parties may fraudulently act and take advantage. She suggested that explanation to Sec. 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 should be made clearer. She illustrated the decision in ONGC v. Saw Pipes case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that an award can be set aside if it is contrary to the terms of the justice, morality and patently illegal, whereas in another Supreme Court judgment it was held that if an award is opposed to substantive law it can be declared null under Sec. 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such attributes should be included in domestic laws.
Speaker 3: V. Inbhavijayan, Advocate/International Arbitrator
Mr.Inbhavijayan stated that there should be a balance of qualifications and ethics in arbitration. While expressing that the pattern of autonomy is the utmost thing in choosing arbitration, more than 90% arbitration in India is ad hoc. In comparison, for ad hoc – Secretary General of PCA appoints the arbitrator whereas in institutional that not the case. He maintained that it is always better to have a trained arbitrator, who possesses subject expertise. He gave the example of the republic of China where there is mandatory arbitration and only institutional arbitration is recognized.
Speaker 4: Mr. Steven Lim, Partner, Clyde & Co. LLP, Singapore
Mr. Steven discussed why parties should choose the domestic arbitration for the following reasons:
(1). Domestic arbitration is less expensive in comparison to the foreign one.
(2). It is difficult for the parties to be familiar with the foreign laws but in his experience in Overseas Arbitration, the parties are supposed to be well conversant with the domestic laws. |
