Chairperson: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Judge, Supreme Court of India.
In his opening address the Chairperson commented that the world has become a huge village by means of the communication systems that have brought us together. Thus disputes are bound to occur , but providing means of amicable resolution .UNCITRAL has given us a leading set of arbitration rules. Amendments to the said rules are also happening holding great promises for strategic developments in the process of dispute resolution.
Speaker 1: Mr Ganesh Chandru, International Arbitration Practioner Clyde and Co. LLP.
Mr. Chandru gave an enlightening overview of the new SIAC rules 2010. He demonstrated how Singapore is a viable location for arbitration, especially for Asians, thus making SIAC a premier arbitral institution. The SIAC has introduced a new set of rules to keep up with the global trends in 2010. Mr. Chandru explained and highlighted the salient features of these rules, specially emphasizing on the expedited procedure, where under, if a request is made under rule 5 for expedite procedure, the cause of which, is justifiable, the SIAC appoints an arbitrator within 21 days and the award has to be made within six months. He also pointed out the main advantages for Indian parties choosing SIAC Arbitration, such as proximity, close cultural ties, English common law tradition and both India and Singapore being parties to the Yew York convention 1958. He was glad to share the information that in 2009 20% of the cases at SIAC was that of Indian parties, the highest share for any foreign country. Mr. Chandru wrapped up by mentioning the SIAC model clause in drawing up international contracts.
Speaker 2: Mr. Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court
Mr. Dayal crafted a comparison of the 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL rules. He was very enthusiastic about the effective date of the new rules which is 15th August 2010, it being a day of national pride for all of us. Mr. Dayal pointed out some of the most outstanding features of the new rules, such as transparency as enshrined in Article 11, identification of the contract and sufficiency of notice (Article 3), waiver of claim against the Arbitrator (Article 60), and joinder of relevant third parties, in the arbitration claim. He noted that it is very surprising that the cost incurred in most arbitration proceedings is more than that in civil suits, add to it the amount claimed by the aggrieved parties and the time spent. He expressed concern on the high cost of arbitration proceedings and said it may dissuade the parties from resorting to arbitration. Mr. Dayal highlighted the advantages of UNCITRAL 2010 and the favourable environment created by it for amicable settlement of disputes.
Speaker 3: Mr. L.V Sreerangaraju, Executive Director, Karnatraka Power Corporation, India.
Mr. Sreerangaraju gave a comparative study of modifications made in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010, in relevance to the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. He discussed the scope of application of Arbitration in Article -1 of the 2010 Rules which are now made in respect of a “defined legal relationship, (whether contractual or not)”. This is a necessary inclusion to remove incompatibility with the Model Law and the 1976 Rules. According to him, the most relevant part is Article 3 which introduces a new sub-clause -5, stating that the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal shall not be hindered by any controversy with respect to the sufficiency of the notice of arbitration, which shall be finally resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal. In addition, Article 4, Rule 2(f) recognizes the importance of multi party arbitration and allows the Respondent to formulate a claim against a party to the arbitration agreement other than the claimant. He further drew out a comparison of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act 1996 in so far as they relate to the terms “to appear” and “be entitled to practice”. He also discussed the issue of appointment of arbitrator/s which in both international and Indian law is deemed to be one by default.
Speaker 4: Mr. Sarup Singh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
He pointed out the defects in the 1976 Rules viz. that it accrued basically for ad-hoc arbitration and lacked institutional supervision. He mentioned that now -a- days even ad-hoc arbitration is going through semi-institutionalization in so far as the provisions for designating and appointing of authority are concerned. Thus, he emphasized on the need for formal institutionalization of arbitration proceedings in India, in order to further regulate the procedure. He also discussed the provision of Interim Relief under Article 26 of the new rules.He said the entire session was a learning experience and appreciated the participation of all the dignitaries despite their busy schedules.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar concluded by saying that this is certainly an addition to the knowledge one possesses in this field. He quoted Henry Campbell- Bannerman, an eminent lawyer, “before long, the principle of arbitration may win such confidence as to justify its extension to a wider field of international differences.” |
