Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Notes
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a landmark piece of legislation in India that governs Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, primarily arbitration, and conciliation. It replaced the previous antiquated laws to provide a modern, efficient, and party-centric framework for resolving disputes.
Here are some key aspects of the Act, which are essential for understanding its provisions:
1. Historical Context and Objectives
Supersedes Previous Laws: The 1996 Act consolidated and replaced three prior statutes: the Arbitration Act, 1940; the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937; and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.
Inspired by UNCITRAL: The Act is based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation Rules. This alignment with international standards was a key objective to make India an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
Key Objectives:
To provide for a fair, speedy, and cost-effective resolution of disputes.
To minimize the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process.
To promote party autonomy and allow parties to choose the procedure for their arbitration.
To ensure the enforceability of domestic and foreign arbitral awards.
2. Structure of the Act
The Act is divided into four main parts:
Part I (Sections 2-43): Deals with domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration where the place of arbitration is in India. This is the most extensive part and covers the entire process from the arbitration agreement to the enforcement of the award.
Part II (Sections 44-60): Focuses on the enforcement of certain foreign arbitral awards, primarily those under the New York Convention and the Geneva Convention.
Part III (Sections 61-81): Lays down the procedure and principles for conciliation.
Part IV (Sections 82-86): Contains supplementary provisions, including the power to make rules and repeal of old laws.
3. Key Concepts and Sections
Arbitration Agreement (Section 7): This is the foundation of any arbitration. It must be in writing and is an agreement by the parties to submit present or future disputes to arbitration. It can be a clause within a contract or a separate agreement.
Minimal Judicial Intervention (Section 5): This is a cornerstone of the Act. It states that no judicial authority shall intervene in the arbitration process unless the Act specifically provides for it.
Interim Measures by Court (Section 9): Even with limited judicial intervention, the Act allows parties to approach a court for interim measures of protection (e.g., injunctions, preservation of assets) before or during the arbitral proceedings, or even after the award is made but before its enforcement.
Appointment of Arbitrators (Section 11): The Act emphasizes party autonomy in appointing arbitrators. If the parties fail to agree, they can approach the High Court or the Supreme Court (depending on the nature of arbitration) for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal (Section 16): This section enshrines the "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" principle, which means the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings (Section 19): The tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Indian Evidence Act. It can determine its own procedure, provided it treats both parties equally and gives them a full opportunity to present their case.
Arbitral Award (Section 31): The final decision of the arbitral tribunal is called an arbitral award. It must be in writing, signed by the arbitrators, and state the reasons for the decision, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Setting Aside the Arbitral Award (Section 34): This is the primary remedy against an arbitral award. An award can be set aside by a court only on specific, limited grounds, such as a party's incapacity, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, or if the award is against the public policy of India.
Enforcement of Arbitral Award (Section 36): Once the period for challenging an award under Section 34 has expired, or if a challenge has been rejected, the award is enforceable as if it were a decree of the court. This makes the arbitral award a powerful and binding instrument.
4. Key Amendments and Developments
The Act has been amended several times to address practical challenges and further streamline the arbitration process. Important amendments include:
2015 Amendment: Introduced a time limit for the completion of arbitration proceedings (12 months from the date of completion of pleadings), a provision for a fast-track procedure, and limited the scope of judicial intervention in the post-award stage. It also clarified the "public policy" ground for setting aside an award.
2019 Amendment: Addressed some issues from the 2015 amendment, including the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India to grade arbitral institutions and accrediting arbitrators. It also introduced provisions for maintaining the confidentiality of proceedings.
2021 Amendment: Brought in a new provision allowing for an unconditional stay on the enforcement of an award if the court is prima facie satisfied that the arbitration agreement or the award was induced by fraud or corruption.
5. Landmark Judgments
Several Supreme Court judgments have shaped the interpretation and application of the Act:
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. (2012) ("BALCO"): This landmark case clarified the territorial scope of Part I of the Act. The court held that Part I applies only to arbitrations seated in India, thus respecting the principle of party autonomy to choose the seat of arbitration.
ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. (2014): The court expanded the interpretation of "public policy" under Section 34 to include awards that are "patently illegal" or in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
S. Shanmugam v. V. Rajkumar (2019): This case reiterated the principle of minimal judicial intervention, emphasizing that at the pre-reference stage, the court's role is limited to a prima facie assessment of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020): This judgment clarified the "arbitrability" of disputes, holding that all civil or commercial disputes that can be adjudicated by a court can, in principle, be decided by an arbitral tribunal, unless a specific statute expressly bars arbitration.
Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (2025): The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority judgment, held that courts have a limited power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34 and Section 37, a significant departure from previous interpretations that only allowed courts to set aside an award.
This is a brief overview, and the Act itself, along with the numerous amendments and judicial interpretations, constitutes a complex and evolving field of study.
RELATED Blog
0 comments