• Summary of Conference
• Tecnical Session 1
• Tecnical Session 2
• Tecnical Session 3
• Tecnical Session 4
• Tecnical Session 5
• Tecnical Session 6
• Past Events

Chairperson: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen, Delhi High Court
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sen expressed the need for the Saw Pipes case to be reconsidered. According to him, the arbitrators should have complete autonomy to handle all the arbitration issues on their own. Long, delayed arbitration defeats the very purpose of arbitration. As far as the system of arbitration is concerned, Singapore takes the lead in Asia and India needs to learn from Singapore.

Online dispute resolution is simple, speedy and provides an easy and expeditious way of resolving problems for parties which are in different parts of the world. Delhi High Court has e- courts but they are not as functional as they ought to be. But once they are utilized properly, it will be possible to have a successful arbitration system. The Supreme Court has already decided upon this issue and held that choosing an umpire online is valid. According to Hon’ble Justice Sen, paper filing etc. should have already been done away with since e- filing is the order of the day.

Speaker 1: Ms. Karnika Seth, Attorney at Law and Partner, Seth Associates
Ms. Seth spoke about cyberspace law and the application of online dispute resolution therein. She gave a brief presentation about the actual working of the online dispute resolution system. She said that currently, net disputes also include disputes regarding defamation, intellectual property, family laws and even labour law. Online dispute resolution means using information technology to settle dispute and it is not just limited to arbitration or mediation.

ODR is a highly recommended method because it is not as time consuming as normal litigation, disputes are easily documented and the person need not submit to the jurisdiction of any court. There are three main models of online dispute settlement:

1. Cyber settle: wherein there is automated negotiation mechanism
2. Online mediation: wherein there is live mediation
3. Online adjudication: wherein there is online arbitration

According to her, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Information Act, 2000, are well equipped to cater to the online system of dispute resolution. The steps that need to be taken are:

1. Create more awareness
2. Draft rules in case of any ambiguity
3. Extend the system by promoting it in all legislations
4. Parties should be made to sign a binding agreement before they enter into the online dispute resolution system.

Speaker 2: Mr. O.P. Gupta
Mr. Gupta gave a summary of the various case laws on the topic of enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India. Some of the main issues that were highlighted were:

1. While deciding whether the award was a foreign award or domestic award, the Courts must keep in mind the agreement.
2. Winding up proceedings being equitable mode of execution, it can be used for enforcement of foreign award and the court shall allow it in its discretion. The court has complete discretion either to admit winding up petition or to relegate parties to avail prescribed mode available in law.
3. A foreign award given after the commencement of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be enforced only under the new act.
4. Proceedings in arbitration by International Chamber of Commerce cannot be stayed by Domestic courts.
5. A party applying for the enforcement of foreign award must make an application under section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, accompanied by the documentary evidence delineated in the said section. The burden of proof on him, upon production of the aforesaid documents stands discharged and the onus shifts to the party resisting the enforcement.

Speaker 3: Mr. M. Sridhar, Vice President, SEW Infrastructure Ltd.
Mr. Sridhar said that it is essential to have institutional arbitration for international arbitration. Some of the important aspects of institutional arbitrations are:

1. System of  determining the choice of law
2.  In the absence of clarity  in  governing laws  institution will fill the gap.
3.  Chances of voluntary compliance of award appointment of arbitrators will be regulated
4. Parties relieved from the botheration of Appointment of arbitrators,services,fees etc .,

Talking about the application of online dispute resolution in the construction industry, he said that around Rs. 50,000 crore was locked in litigation. With the growth in the industry and increase in international partnerships, it is necessary to bring in institutional arbitration and do away with the delays that are being caused due to ad hoc arbitrations. Technology is catching up in the construction industry and it will take some time for the institutional arbitration to become more  functional on ODR . The main requirements are:

1. Institutional support
2. Proper facilities for video conferencing etc.
3. Proper institutional mechanism

Speaker 4: Mr. Tarun Dua
Mr. Dua advocated the acceptability of the online dispute resolution system. It is virtual, paperless and is recognised under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the system in the cases Shakti Bhog v. Kola Shipping Ltd. It is necessary to have a procedure which ensures that no additional disputes should come up regarding the application of the laws and procedure. The infrastructure provided should be reliable, confidential and should ensure equality and independence in proceedings. In ODR, the pleadings as well as the awards can be exchanged using pdf format.

According to him, there is no impediment in the law and the courts have always encouraged this system. The system needs to be made more effective and widespread in its use by cautiously drafting rules to overcome all the technical challenges.

Speaker 5: Mr. S.K. Dholakia
Mr. Dholakia summed up the session by highlighting the suitability of the ODR for India because India has already distinguished itself in Information technology affairs. Even the Information Technology Act is supportive of this system. If the courts liberally interpret the various provisions in the Information Technology Act and the other legislations, the ODR system can be easily brought in. Certain questions that need to be taken care of are: whether the Indian Courts will enforce foreign awards that are given online, and whether the clause ‘original award or the copy thereof’ can be construed to include the judgment given online. Such problems should be solved in a proper way considering that ODR holds the future.