The Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Indraprastha Gas Limited v. M/s Chintamani Food and Snacks, delivered by Justice Sachin Datta, has provided crucial clarity on the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1]. This landmark decision reinforces the fundamental principle that courts must confine their examination to the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements during Section 11 proceedings, leaving complex interpretative questions regarding applicability and validity to be determined by arbitral tribunals.

The judgment, arising from a commercial dispute over a Gas Supply Agreement (GSA), demonstrates the continuing evolution of Indian arbitration jurisprudence toward minimal judicial interference and maximum arbitral autonomy. By ruling that contentions regarding the applicability or relevance of arbitration agreements must be decided by arbitrators rather than courts during Section 11 proceedings, the Delhi High Court has aligned itself with recent Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz and the principle of separability of arbitration clauses [2].

This decision has significant implications for commercial arbitration practice in India, particularly in cases involving complex contractual relationships where parties may challenge the continued applicability of arbitration clauses due to changed circumstances or contractual modifications.

Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the mechanism for judicial appointment of arbitrators when parties are unable to constitute an arbitral tribunal in accordance with their agreed procedure. The provision has undergone significant amendments, most notably the insertion of Section 11(6A) in 2015, which explicitly limited the court’s examination to the “existence of an arbitration agreement” [3].

The legislative intent behind Section 11(6A) was to curtail extensive judicial intervention that had previously characterized arbitrator appointment proceedings. Prior to this amendment, courts exercised broad discretionary powers to examine preliminary issues including validity, scope, and enforceability of arbitration agreements, often leading to protracted pre-arbitral litigation that defeated the fundamental purpose of expeditious dispute resolution through arbitration.

The current framework requires courts to adopt a minimalist approach, examining only whether an arbitration agreement exists prima facie between the parties. This threshold test is deliberately set low to ensure that doubtful cases are referred to arbitration rather than being decided summarily by courts, thereby preserving the parties’ autonomy to resolve disputes through their chosen mechanism.

Prima Facie Standard Under Section 11

The concept of “prima facie existence” under Section 11 has been refined through extensive judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court in various decisions has clarified that this standard requires courts to examine whether, on the face of the documents, an arbitration agreement appears to exist between the parties without delving into complex questions of interpretation or validity [4].

This prima facie standard serves multiple purposes: it prevents courts from conducting mini-trials on arbitrability at the threshold stage, it preserves arbitral jurisdiction over complex interpretative questions, it reduces pre-arbitral delays and costs, and it maintains consistency with international arbitration practice emphasizing tribunal autonomy.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in the Indraprastha Gas case exemplifies the proper application of this standard, where the court acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause in the GSA without examining the respondent’s arguments about changed circumstances affecting its applicability.

Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz

The principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, fundamental to modern arbitration law, empowers arbitral tribunals to determine their own jurisdiction including questions regarding the existence, validity, and scope of arbitration agreements. This doctrine, recognized in Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, has been gradually incorporated into Indian arbitration jurisprudence through judicial interpretation [5].

The Delhi High Court’s decision strengthens the application of this doctrine by clearly demarcating the boundaries between judicial and arbitral jurisdiction. By ruling that applicability questions must be decided by arbitrators, the court has reinforced the principle that tribunals are best placed to examine complex contractual interpretation issues that affect their jurisdiction.

Factual Background of the Case

The Gas Supply Agreement

The dispute in Indraprastha Gas Limited v. M/s Chintamani Food and Snacks arose from a Gas Supply Agreement dated March 5, 2018, executed between Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) and M/s Chintamani Food and Snacks for the supply of Piped Natural Gas (PNG). The agreement contained a comprehensive arbitration clause under Article 23, which provided the framework for resolving disputes arising from or in connection with the contract [6].

The factual matrix reveals the complexity of modern commercial relationships and the potential for disputes to arise from changing business circumstances. From the commencement of PNG supply on August 25, 2012, until October 2020, the respondent operated under a post-paid gas supply model. However, in October 2020, there was a significant change when the respondent switched to a prepaid gas service plan, fundamentally altering the commercial relationship between the parties.

The Billing Dispute

The core dispute emerged from alleged undercharging during the transition period. IGL contended that the respondent was undercharged due to an outdated tariff rate that was not updated by AIUT Technologies LLP, IGL’s service agency. This technical oversight resulted in an outstanding amount of ₹3,50,638.33 for the period from July to December 2022, which the respondent disputed and denied liability for.

The respondent’s denial of liability and subsequent invocation of the arbitration clause by IGL created the jurisdictional question that came before the Delhi High Court. The respondent’s primary contention was that the arbitration clause had become inapplicable once they transitioned to a prepaid customer, fundamentally challenging the continued relevance of the original contractual dispute resolution mechanism.

Procedural History

Following the respondent’s denial of liability, IGL filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The respondent opposed this petition on the ground that the arbitration clause contained in the GSA was no longer applicable to their commercial relationship following the change to prepaid service.

This opposition raised fundamental questions about the survival and applicability of arbitration clauses in evolving commercial relationships, issues that required careful judicial consideration of the appropriate forum for resolving such complex interpretative questions.

Delhi High Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Existence vs. Applicability Distinction

Justice Sachin Datta’s judgment makes a crucial distinction between the existence of an arbitration agreement and its applicability to specific disputes. The court emphasized that while the execution of the GSA was undisputed and the agreement admittedly contained an arbitration clause, questions regarding its applicability involve interpretation and adjudication best left to the arbitral tribunal [7].

This distinction is fundamental to understanding the limited scope of Section 11 proceedings. The court noted that determining whether the GSA ceased to apply after the respondent became a prepaid customer requires interpretation of the contract and constitutes an “adjudicatory exercise” that falls within the exclusive domain of the arbitral tribunal.

The judgment reflects a sophisticated understanding of the different levels of inquiry involved in arbitration proceedings: threshold questions of existence suitable for summary determination by courts, and substantive questions of interpretation requiring detailed adjudication by specialized arbitral tribunals.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The Delhi High Court grounded its decision in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the landmark decisions in In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act (2023) and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024 INSC 532). These precedents established clear parameters for judicial intervention under Section 11, emphasizing that referral courts must only ascertain the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements [8].

The court’s reliance on SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning is particularly significant as this decision comprehensively analyzed the scope of Section 11 proceedings and reaffirmed the limited nature of judicial scrutiny at the referral stage. The Supreme Court in that case held that courts must restrict their examination to the existence of arbitration agreements, leaving all other questions for arbitral determination.

Application of Separability Doctrine

The judgment implicitly applies the doctrine of separability, which treats arbitration clauses as autonomous from their host contracts. This principle ensures that arbitration agreements survive even when the underlying contract is disputed, terminated, or becomes unenforceable. By refusing to examine whether changed circumstances affected the arbitration clause’s applicability, the Delhi High Court preserved the clause’s autonomous character [9].

The separability doctrine serves important policy objectives in commercial arbitration: it prevents parties from avoiding arbitration by challenging the main contract, it ensures that dispute resolution mechanisms remain available even when contractual relationships evolve, and it maintains consistency with international arbitration practice.

Appointment Procedure and CORE Judgment Impact

Invalidation of Petitioner-Controlled Appointment

A significant aspect of the Delhi High Court’s decision concerned the arbitrator appointment procedure specified in the GSA. The original agreement allowed the petitioner to nominate arbitrators from a panel of three persons chosen by IGL. However, the court declared this procedure invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (2024) [10].

The CORE judgment established important principles regarding arbitrator independence and impartiality, ruling that appointment procedures that give one party unilateral control over arbitrator selection violate fundamental principles of natural justice and arbitral fairness. The Supreme Court emphasized that arbitrator appointment must be genuinely independent to ensure procedural fairness and maintain confidence in the arbitral process.

Court’s Appointment of Independent Arbitrator

Following the invalidation of the contractual appointment procedure, the Delhi High Court exercised its statutory power under Section 11 to appoint Mr. Anant Vijay Palli, Senior Advocate, as the sole arbitrator. This appointment exemplifies the court’s residual role in ensuring that arbitration proceedings can commence despite defective contractual procedures [11].

The court’s appointment process demonstrates the balance between party autonomy and judicial intervention in arbitration. While courts generally respect parties’ agreed procedures, they retain supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that such procedures comply with fundamental principles of fairness and independence.

Preservation of Respondent’s Rights

The judgment carefully preserved the respondent’s right to raise jurisdictional objections before the appointed arbitrator. Justice Sachin Datta explicitly stated that “the respondent is at liberty to raise objections regarding jurisdiction or arbitrability before the learned Sole Arbitrator. All rights and contentions are reserved” [12].

This preservation of rights reflects the court’s understanding that referral orders do not prejudice substantive arguments regarding arbitral jurisdiction. Parties retain full rights to challenge tribunal jurisdiction through appropriate procedures, ensuring that expedited referral does not compromise procedural fairness.

Comparative Analysis with Recent Supreme Court Jurisprudence

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024)

The Delhi High Court’s decision aligns closely with the Supreme Court’s comprehensive analysis in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, which addressed similar questions about the scope of Section 11 proceedings. The Supreme Court in that case established that courts must limit their examination to the prima facie existence of arbitration agreements, leaving complex questions of accord and satisfaction, validity, and applicability to arbitral tribunals [13].

The Krish Spinning decision is particularly relevant because it involved disputes over whether subsequent settlement agreements affected the applicability of arbitration clauses. The Supreme Court’s ruling that such questions require detailed adjudication by arbitral tribunals rather than summary determination by courts provides strong precedential support for the Delhi High Court’s approach.

Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act (2023)

The seven-judge constitutional bench decision in In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act represents a watershed moment in Indian arbitration law. The decision clarified fundamental questions about the relationship between arbitration agreements and other legal requirements, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 11 [14].

The constitutional bench’s ruling that referral courts should focus exclusively on the existence of arbitration agreements, without examining complex questions of validity or enforceability, provides constitutional foundation for the minimalist approach adopted by the Delhi High Court.

Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021)

While the Delhi High Court did not explicitly cite Vidya Drolia, this landmark Supreme Court decision provides important context for understanding the evolution of Section 11 jurisprudence. Vidya Drolia established parameters for when courts may examine arbitrability questions at the referral stage, emphasizing that such examination should be limited to exceptional circumstances involving manifestly non-arbitrable disputes [15].

The Delhi High Court’s approach is consistent with Vidya Drolia’s emphasis on minimal judicial intervention, focusing on existence rather than complex questions of scope or applicability that require detailed consideration.

Implications for Commercial Arbitration Practice

Reduced Pre-Arbitral Litigation

The Delhi High Court’s decision contributes to the broader judicial trend toward reducing pre-arbitral litigation by limiting the scope of Section 11 proceedings. By clearly stating that applicability questions must be decided by arbitrators, the court has reduced incentives for parties to raise complex interpretative arguments as threshold objections to arbitration [16].

This reduction in pre-arbitral litigation serves several important policy objectives: it accelerates the commencement of arbitral proceedings, it reduces costs associated with threshold disputes, it preserves arbitral jurisdiction over complex questions, and it maintains consistency with international best practices.

Enhanced Arbitral Autonomy

The judgment strengthens arbitral autonomy by recognizing that tribunals are better positioned than courts to examine complex contractual interpretation questions. This recognition reflects growing judicial confidence in arbitral expertise and willingness to defer to specialized adjudicatory mechanisms for technical commercial disputes.

Enhanced arbitral autonomy promotes several benefits: it ensures that disputes are decided by experts familiar with commercial practices, it allows for more flexible and efficient dispute resolution procedures, it reduces judicial workload in complex commercial matters, and it maintains consistency with international arbitration principles.

Clarity for Contractual Drafting

The decision provides important guidance for commercial lawyers drafting arbitration clauses and dispute resolution provisions. The clear demarcation between existence and applicability questions helps practitioners understand what issues may be challenged at the referral stage versus those that must await arbitral determination.

This clarity enables more informed strategic decisions about dispute resolution, including when to challenge arbitral jurisdiction, how to structure settlement negotiations, and what arguments to preserve for arbitral proceedings rather than preliminary court challenges.

Procedural Considerations and Best Practices

Strategic Implications for Respondents

The Delhi High Court’s decision significantly impacts strategic considerations for parties opposing arbitration referrals. The ruling makes clear that complex arguments about changed circumstances, contractual evolution, or conditional applicability of arbitration clauses will not prevent referral to arbitration under Section 11 proceedings.

Respondents opposing arbitration must now focus their Section 11 arguments on fundamental questions of existence rather than sophisticated interpretative challenges. This shift requires different legal strategies and may influence decisions about whether to oppose referrals or preserve arguments for arbitral proceedings.

Efficient Case Management

The judgment promotes efficient case management by reducing the scope for prolonged threshold disputes in Section 11 proceedings. Courts can now dispose of referral applications more expeditiously by focusing exclusively on existence questions rather than engaging with complex contractual interpretation arguments.

This efficiency serves broader systemic goals of reducing court backlogs, accelerating dispute resolution, and maintaining India’s attractiveness as an arbitration seat for international and domestic commercial disputes.

Preservation of Due Process Rights

Despite emphasizing expedited referral, the Delhi High Court carefully preserved due process rights by ensuring that respondents retain full rights to challenge arbitral jurisdiction before the appointed tribunal. This balance between efficiency and fairness reflects sophisticated understanding of arbitration procedure and constitutional requirements.

International Perspectives and Comparative Analysis

UNCITRAL Model Law Compliance

The Delhi High Court’s approach aligns with international best practices embodied in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Article 8 of the Model Law requires courts to refer parties to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed,” establishing a similar low threshold for referral [17].

The Model Law’s approach emphasizes judicial restraint and arbitral autonomy, principles that are reflected in the Delhi High Court’s decision to limit its examination to existence questions while leaving complex interpretative issues to arbitral tribunals.

English Arbitration Act Comparison

The English Arbitration Act 1996 provides useful comparative context for understanding the Delhi High Court’s approach. Section 9 of the English Act establishes a similar framework for judicial referral to arbitration, with courts required to grant stay applications unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.”

English courts have developed sophisticated jurisprudence around these threshold requirements, generally adopting a restrictive approach that favors referral to arbitration except in clear cases of invalidity. The Delhi High Court’s approach reflects similar judicial philosophy emphasizing arbitral autonomy.

Singapore International Arbitration Centre Practice

Singapore’s approach to arbitration referrals provides another relevant comparison point. The Singapore International Arbitration Act similarly limits judicial intervention at the referral stage, with courts required to refer disputes to arbitration unless there are compelling reasons to conclude that no valid arbitration agreement exists.

Singapore’s success as an international arbitration hub partly reflects its judicial system’s restraint in arbitration matters and willingness to defer to arbitral expertise. The Delhi High Court’s decision contributes to similar institutional development in India.

Future Developments and Legislative Considerations

Potential Impact of Arbitration Amendment Bill

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018, which remains under legislative consideration, proposes significant changes to the appointment process under Section 11. The Bill contemplates greater reliance on institutional appointments and reduced judicial involvement in arbitrator selection [18].

The Delhi High Court’s decision demonstrates judicial readiness to embrace reduced intervention even under the current statutory framework, potentially easing the transition to more institutional approaches contemplated by proposed amendments.

Development of Institutional Arbitration

The judgment’s emphasis on expedited referral and minimal judicial intervention supports the broader policy goal of developing institutional arbitration in India. By reducing delays and costs associated with court-based appointment procedures, the decision encourages parties to consider institutional alternatives that may offer more efficient appointment mechanisms.

The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), under whose rules the appointed arbitration will proceed, represents the type of institutional development that benefits from reduced judicial intervention in threshold questions.

Capacity Building for Commercial Courts

The decision highlights the need for specialized training and capacity building for judges hearing commercial arbitration matters. The sophisticated distinction between existence and applicability questions requires judicial understanding of arbitration principles and international best practices.

Continued judicial education and training programs will be essential to ensure consistent application of the principles established in this decision across different courts and jurisdictions.

Challenges and Potential Concerns

Risk of Frivolous Arbitrations

Critics might argue that limiting judicial scrutiny under Section 11 could lead to frivolous arbitrations where parties invoke arbitration clauses despite clear inapplicability. However, this concern is addressed by the availability of jurisdictional challenges before arbitral tribunals and subsequent judicial review under Section 34.

The multi-layered review process ensures that inappropriate arbitrations can be terminated at the appropriate stage without requiring extensive judicial intervention at the threshold.

Balancing Speed and Accuracy

The emphasis on expedited referral must be balanced against the need for accurate determination of arbitral jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court’s approach reflects a policy choice to err on the side of referral rather than summary dismissal, relying on arbitral tribunals to provide more detailed and accurate jurisdictional determinations.

This balance reflects broader policy preferences for arbitral autonomy and party choice in dispute resolution mechanisms.

Ensuring Arbitral Competence

The success of the Delhi High Court’s approach depends partly on the competence and expertise of arbitral tribunals to handle complex jurisdictional questions. Continued development of arbitral expertise and training programs will be essential to support the expanded role contemplated by this decision.

Recommendations for Practitioners

Drafting Arbitration Clauses

Commercial lawyers should ensure that arbitration clauses are drafted with sufficient clarity to minimize threshold disputes about existence while preserving necessary flexibility for complex commercial relationships. Key considerations include defining the scope of arbitrable disputes, specifying appointment procedures that comply with independence requirements, including provisions for institutional administration where appropriate, and addressing potential conflicts with other dispute resolution mechanisms.

Strategic Litigation Decisions

Practitioners representing parties in Section 11 proceedings should focus their arguments on fundamental questions of existence rather than complex interpretative challenges that are more appropriately addressed by arbitral tribunals. This strategic shift requires careful analysis of what arguments are likely to succeed at the referral stage versus those that should be preserved for arbitral proceedings.

Client Counseling and Expectations Management

The decision’s implications should be clearly communicated to commercial clients to ensure realistic expectations about the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters. Clients should understand that complex disputes about arbitration clause applicability will likely proceed to arbitral determination rather than being resolved summarily by courts.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Indraprastha Gas Limited v. M/s Chintamani Food and Snacks represents a significant contribution to the evolution of Indian arbitration jurisprudence toward minimal judicial intervention and maximum arbitral autonomy. By clearly establishing that questions of arbitration clause applicability must be decided by arbitrators rather than courts during Section 11 proceedings, Justice Sachin Datta has provided important clarity for commercial arbitration practice.

The judgment’s emphasis on the distinction between existence and applicability questions reflects sophisticated understanding of modern arbitration principles and aligns Indian practice with international best practices. The decision strengthens the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz while preserving necessary judicial oversight through appropriate procedural safeguards.

The ruling’s practical implications extend beyond the immediate parties to influence broader patterns of commercial dispute resolution in India. By reducing incentives for threshold challenges and promoting expedited referral to arbitration, the decision enhances the effectiveness of Section 11 proceedings and contributes to India’s development as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction capable of handling complex commercial disputes efficiently and fairly.

The careful balance struck between judicial restraint and procedural fairness demonstrates the maturity of Indian arbitration law and its continued evolution toward international standards. As India continues to develop its arbitration infrastructure and expertise, decisions like this provide essential foundation for building confidence among domestic and international commercial parties in India’s dispute resolution capabilities.

Looking forward, the decision’s principles should guide the continued development of arbitration law and practice in India, with Section 11 proceedings serving as a critical gateway to arbitral justice. The judgment represents not merely a technical ruling but a meaningful contribution to India’s emergence as a significant player in international commercial arbitration.

References

[1] Indraprastha Gas Limited v. M/s Chintamani Food and Snacks, ARB.P. 355/2024, Delhi High Court. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/arbitration-cases/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-gas-supply-dispute-invalidates-previous-arbitration-clause-in-view-of-core-judgment-277613 

[2] Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Available at: https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-11-of-the-arbitration-&-conciliation-act-1996 

[3] Section 11(6A), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amendment 2015). Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=80d1bbf0-c3d2-458b-bcd9-38c7c658fdfc 

[4] Prima facie standard under Section 11. Available at: https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/09/novation-of-contract-and-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/ 

[5] Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Indian Arbitration. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/04/15/the-anomalous-case-of-sections-8-and-11-of-indias-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/ 

[6] Gas Supply Agreement factual background. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-monthly-digest-december-2024-citations-1305-1394-279601 

[7] Delhi High Court’s distinction between existence and applicability. Available at: https://indiacorplaw.in/2024/11/26/supreme-court-clarifies-the-scope-of-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/ 

[8] SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 INSC 532. Available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/2024-insc-532-sbi-general-insurance-co-ltd-vs-krish-spinning-arbitration-1544556 

[9] Separability doctrine in arbitration agreements. Available at: https://jgu.edu.in/mappingADR/the-story-behind-section-116a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/ 

[10] Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), 2024. Available at: https://jgu.edu.in/mappingADR/the-unresolved-conundrum-of-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996/ 

[11] Court appointment of independent arbitrator. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/12/27/proposed-repeal-of-section-11-6a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-who-decides-the-question-of-existence-of-an-arbitration-agreement/ 

[12] Preservation of respondent’s rights quote. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/arbitration-cases/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-gas-supply-dispute-invalidates-previous-arbitration-clause-in-view-of-core-judgment-277613 

[13] SBI General Insurance detailed analysis. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171443079/ 

[14] Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act (2023). Available at: https://www.acmlegal.org/blog/supreme-courts-stand-on-arbitration-post-full-and-final-settlement/ 

[15] Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation principles. Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6e8b59f-9f16-41e7-a1b4-586b883ae749 

PDF Links to Full Judgement

• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Indraprastha_Gas_Limited_vs_M_S_Chintamani_Food_And_Snacks_on_23_August_2024.PDF
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/a1996-26.pdf
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Sbi_General_Insurance_Co_Ltd_vs_Krish_Spinning_on_18_July_2024.PDF

Written and Authorized by Moksh Bhatnagar

The post Section 11 Arbitration Act: Appointment of Arbitrator Procedure & Scope appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction  

The recent Bombay High Court judgment in Dhule Municipal Commissioner v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. highlights a crucial aspect of arbitration law in India: whether an arbitrator can change venue for arbitration proceedings without the unanimous consent of all parties. This article explores the legal provisions, judicial precedents, and reasoning presented in this judgment, providing both general readers and legal professionals with an understanding of the arbitrator’s discretionary powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Case Background

In Dhule Municipal Commissioner v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. [(2024) ibclaw.in 1168 HC], the petitioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, contested an order by the arbitrator that set the venue of arbitration at Aurangabad, contrary to the initially agreed-upon location of Dhule. The parties’ agreement stipulated Dhule as the venue for arbitration, but logistical issues and concerns about neutrality led the arbitrator to move proceedings to Aurangabad.

Legal Issues: Can an Arbitrator Change Venue Without Mutual Consent?

The case brought forth two primary legal questions:

1. Does the arbitrator have the authority to change the agreed venue of arbitration without mutual consent?
2. Under what conditions can an arbitrator exercise discretion to alter the venue, even if specified in the agreement?

Court’s Analysis and Findings 

Understanding Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 20 governs the “place of arbitration,” allowing parties the freedom to select the arbitration location. However, Section 20(3) provides flexibility by allowing the tribunal to hold meetings at any place it considers convenient for purposes like witness hearings or inspections, even if a specific location has been designated.

Court’s Observation on Section 20:  

“Section 20(3) of the Act enables the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, to meet at any place for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts, or parties, or for inspection of documents, goods, or property.” .

Venue vs. Seat of Arbitration

The judgment drew a distinction between the “seat” and “venue” of arbitration. The seat is the legal jurisdiction governing the arbitration, while the venue refers to the physical location where the proceedings are conducted. Here, the seat remained Dhule as per the agreement, but the venue was shifted to Aurangabad for procedural convenience and neutrality.

Court’s Interpretation:  

“Even assuming that the venue is stipulated in the agreement, and the neutrality of venue comes in sharp focus on account of the dominant position of one of the parties at a particular venue… the arbitrator may shift the venue to an alternate location.” .

Arbitrator’s Discretion in Choosing Venue for Procedural Fairness

The Bombay High Court held that an arbitrator discharges quasi-judicial functions, granting them discretion to make procedural decisions that preserve the arbitration’s neutrality and efficiency. The arbitrator considered multiple factors, including past challenges faced by previous arbitrators in conducting proceedings at Dhule and concerns about undue influence at the specified venue. Consequently, shifting the venue to Aurangabad aimed to maintain procedural integrity and impartiality.

Relevant Precedents Cited:

1. BBR (India) Private Limited v. S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (2022): The Supreme Court recognized the tribunal’s authority to determine venue when issues arise, supporting procedural fairness in arbitration.
2. BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited (2020): This case established that the seat of arbitration remains distinct from the venue, which can be modified for convenience without affecting jurisdiction.
3. Lombard Engineering Limited v. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (2023): The Supreme Court allowed deviation from a contractual venue when concerns about neutrality or procedural bias arose.

Judgment Excerpt:  

“If the arbitrator determines that conducting arbitration proceedings at a particular venue is detrimental… considering the convenience of parties, the venue can be changed without affecting the arbitration process.” .

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from Bombay High Court on Arbitrator’s Venue Discretion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Dhule Municipal Commissioner v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. sets a significant precedent, affirming that:

1. Venue Flexibility for Procedural Fairness: Arbitrators may change the venue of arbitration when the integrity of proceedings is at risk or when logistical issues make the agreed venue impractical.
2. Distinction Between Seat and Venue: While the seat governs jurisdiction, the venue is a logistical aspect that can be adapted to ensure impartial and efficient arbitration.
3. Limits on Arbitrator’s Discretion: Arbitrators must exercise venue modification judiciously, ensuring neutrality and convenience for all parties.

This judgment is vital for both arbitrators and contracting parties, underscoring the arbitrator’s role in balancing procedural fairness with the contractual agreement on venue, especially in scenarios where neutrality and efficiency might be compromised.

The post Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Discretion to Change Venue in Arbitration Proceedings appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

In a detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court has elucidated on the precise timing required for invoking arbitration under the Arbitration Timing Guidelines set forth by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case, involving Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors. vs. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors., serves as a pivotal guide for legal practitioners and parties involved in arbitration agreements.

The Essence of the Case

At the heart of this legal discourse is the application of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which enables parties to move disputes from the courtroom to arbitration, provided an arbitration agreement exists.

Background and Dispute

The plaintiffs, a company specializing in petroleum and oil field operations, entered into a contract with the defendants, which led to disputes requiring judicial intervention. The defendants aimed to invoke the arbitration clause, seeking to redirect the dispute resolution mechanism as prescribed by the Act.

Legal Scrutiny: The Court’s Rationale on Arbitration Timing Guidelines

The Delhi High Court meticulously evaluated the application of Section 8, with a significant emphasis on the procedural timing for invoking arbitration.

“The primary issue before this Court for its consideration is: Whether the suit can be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.” (Para 15)

The Crucial Role of Arbitration Timing Guidelines: Background and Dispute

A core aspect of the court’s examination was the adherence to the statutory timing for filing an arbitration application.

“According to Section 8… the defendant No.1 has an option to take the objection to the filing of the suit in the first instance before it submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court.” (Para 17)

Legal Terminologies Explained

– Arbitration Clause: A provision in a contract that mandates or allows the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than litigation.

– Written Statement: A formal document filed by the defendant in court proceedings, detailing their defense against the plaintiff’s allegations.

– Jurisdiction: The authority granted to a legal body like a court to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility.

The Court’s Rationale and Judgment on Arbitration Timing Guidelines

The court highlighted the forfeiture of the right to arbitration due to the defendants’ engagement in litigation processes beyond the stipulated timeline for invoking arbitration.

 “Consequently, if a party fails to pursue an application under Section 8(1) of the Act… the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.” (Para 20)

Final Observations and Dismissal

Acknowledging the defendants’ submission to the court’s jurisdiction and the abandonment of their arbitration application, the court dismissed the plea for arbitration referral.

“Thus, he had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court… The defendant cannot now put the clock back to the initial stage after sixteen years when much water has flowed under the bridge.” (Para 23)

Concluding Reflections: Adhering to Arbitration Timing Guideline

This judgment from the Delhi High Court accentuates the necessity of complying with procedural requirements for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It serves as a critical reminder for parties to act diligently and within the prescribed timelines to maintain their arbitration rights, ensuring that the legal framework supports fair and efficient dispute resolution.

The post Arbitration Timing Guidelines: Insights from Delhi High Court’s Interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

In the previous articles, we explored the scope and application of Section 9 and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, both of which deal with interim measures in arbitration proceedings. In this final article of the series, we will explore the jurisdictional aspects of filing a Section 9 application.

Pecuniary and Territorial Jurisdiction

The determination of whether a Section 9 application should be filed in a High Court or a District Court is not based on pecuniary jurisdiction. Instead, it depends on the nature of the arbitration (whether it’s domestic or international commercial arbitration) and the specifics of the arbitration agreement between the parties¹.

In terms of territorial jurisdiction, if the contract between the parties is silent on the Seat of Arbitration, Section 9 applications can be preferred in the territorial Jurisdiction of any Court where part cause of action had arisen. However, once a competent Court having jurisdiction has been approached, all subsequent applications are to be filed in the same Court.

If the contract between the parties designates a Seat of Arbitration, and there is cause of action in the place designated as the Seat of Arbitration, Section 9 applications can be preferred in the territorial Jurisdiction of any Court where part cause of action had arisen¹. However, once a competent Court having jurisdiction has been approached, all subsequent applications are to be filed in the same Court.

Case Laws and Application of Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No.III, Panvel & Anr. v Atlanta Limited analyzed the definition of “Court” to determine which court would hear challenges to an arbitral award (or arbitral agreement, or arbitral proceeding) where jurisdiction lies with more than one court and the parties initiate proceedings in multiple courts simultaneously. The Court held that when a Section 34 petition is simultaneously filed in a District court and a High Court, the High Court having ordinary original civil side jurisdiction will have primacy to hear the petition².

In another case, Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the designation of a seat confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of said seat; and a place of arbitration, regardless of its designation as a seat, venue or place, is the juridical seat of arbitration unless there is an indication to the contrary ³.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the jurisdictional aspects of filing a Section 9 application play a crucial role in the arbitration process. The determination of the appropriate court for filing a Section 9 application depends on the nature of the arbitration and the specifics of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Various case laws have clarified the application of these principles. This wraps up our series on interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Learn more

• 1.vertarilegal.com
• 2.mondaq.com
• 3.barandbench.com
• 4.taxguru.in

The post Jurisdictional Aspects of Interim Measures in Arbitration appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Arbitration has emerged as one of the most significant alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in India, transforming from traditional village-level dispute resolution to a sophisticated legal framework that aligns with international standards. The journey of arbitration law in India reflects the nation’s evolution from colonial administration to an independent republic seeking to establish efficient commercial dispute resolution systems that can compete globally while maintaining judicial oversight and fairness.

The development of arbitration in India represents a fascinating intersection of traditional dispute resolution practices, colonial legal structures, and modern international commercial law requirements. This evolution has been marked by significant legislative reforms, landmark judicial pronouncements, and ongoing efforts to create a more arbitration-friendly environment that serves both domestic and international commercial interests.

Historical Foundations of Arbitration in India

Pre-Independence Era and Colonial Foundations

The roots of arbitration in India can be traced back to ancient traditional dispute resolution mechanisms that existed long before formal legal codification. Village elders and panchayats served as informal arbitrators, resolving disputes through customary practices and community consensus. These traditional systems recognized the value of resolving conflicts outside formal court proceedings, emphasizing restoration of relationships rather than punitive measures.

The formal codification of arbitration law in India began during British colonial rule with the enactment of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 [1]. This pioneering legislation was initially limited in scope, applying only to the Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The geographical limitation reflected the colonial administration’s focus on major commercial centers where British trading interests were concentrated. The Act represented the first systematic attempt to create a statutory framework for arbitration in the Indian subcontinent.

Subsequently, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, through its Second Schedule, extended arbitration law provisions to other states and territories [2]. This expansion marked a significant development in making arbitration available throughout British India, though the system remained primarily oriented toward serving colonial commercial interests rather than indigenous dispute resolution needs.

The Arbitration Act of 1940: Consolidation and Limitations

The Arbitration Act of 1940 represented a watershed moment in Indian arbitration law, consolidating domestic arbitration provisions into a single, unified statute. This Act was largely modeled on the English Arbitration Act of 1934, reflecting the colonial legal tradition of adapting English legal principles to Indian conditions. The 1940 Act established the foundational structure for arbitration proceedings, including provisions for arbitrator appointment, conduct of proceedings, and enforcement of awards.

However, the 1940 Act soon revealed significant limitations that hindered its effectiveness in the changing post-independence business environment. The legislation was criticized for being overly technical, procedurally cumbersome, and not responsive to the needs of modern commercial transactions. Courts often interpreted the Act’s provisions narrowly, leading to excessive judicial intervention that defeated the primary purpose of arbitration as a speedy and efficient alternative to litigation.

The Act’s emphasis on court supervision at every stage of arbitration proceedings created delays and uncertainties that made arbitration less attractive to commercial parties. Furthermore, the legislation lacked provisions for international commercial arbitration, which became increasingly important as India’s economy began integrating with global markets in the latter half of the twentieth century.

The Revolutionary Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Genesis and International Alignment

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, marked a revolutionary transformation in India’s approach to alternative dispute resolution [3]. This legislation was primarily modeled after the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, representing India’s commitment to aligning its arbitration framework with international best practices.

The 1996 Act aimed to address the fundamental shortcomings of the 1940 Act by creating a more modern, efficient, and internationally compatible arbitration framework. The legislation encompassed three distinct but related areas: domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and conciliation. This integrated approach recognized that dispute resolution mechanisms needed to be flexible and adaptable to different types of commercial relationships and conflicts.

Key Innovations and Provisions

The 1996 Act introduced several groundbreaking innovations that transformed the arbitration landscape in India. The legislation established the principle of minimal judicial intervention, recognizing that arbitration’s effectiveness depends largely on limiting court interference to essential oversight functions. Section 5 of the Act specifically provides that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the Act, establishing a clear boundary between arbitral proceedings and court jurisdiction.

The Act also recognized the concept of arbitrability, establishing which disputes could be resolved through arbitration and which remained within the exclusive domain of courts. This classification helped create clarity for commercial parties seeking to understand whether their disputes were suitable for arbitral resolution. Additionally, the legislation introduced provisions for interim measures, allowing arbitral tribunals to grant temporary relief pending final resolution of disputes.

International commercial arbitration received special attention under the 1996 Act, with specific provisions addressing seat of arbitration, applicable law, and enforcement of foreign awards. The Act incorporated the New York Convention principles, facilitating India’s integration into the global arbitration community and making Indian arbitration more attractive to international commercial parties.

Landmark Judicial Interpretations

The BALCO Judgment: Defining Territorial Scope

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (2012) represents one of the most significant judicial pronouncements in Indian arbitration law [4]. This landmark decision addressed the crucial question of territorial application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly concerning foreign-seated arbitrations.

The BALCO judgment overruled earlier precedents, most notably the Bhatia International case, which had extended Indian courts’ jurisdiction to foreign-seated arbitrations. The Supreme Court in BALCO definitively held that Part I of the 1996 Act does not apply to arbitrations seated outside India, establishing the fundamental principle that the seat of arbitration determines the applicable legal framework and supervisory court jurisdiction.

This decision clarified the distinction between “seat” and “venue” of arbitration, emphasizing that the seat carries juridical significance and determines which courts have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings. The judgment aligned Indian arbitration law with international practices where the seat of arbitration typically determines the applicable procedural law and supervisory court jurisdiction.

Minimal Judicial Intervention Doctrine

The Supreme Court in Reliance Industries v. Union of India further developed the principle of minimal judicial intervention [5]. This judgment emphasized that courts should resist the temptation to substitute their judgment for that of arbitral tribunals, particularly in matters involving technical or commercial expertise. The decision reinforced the fundamental philosophy underlying the 1996 Act that arbitration should be allowed to function with minimal court interference.

The minimal intervention principle has been consistently applied by Indian courts in subsequent cases, creating a more arbitration-friendly environment. Courts have increasingly recognized that their role should be limited to ensuring due process compliance and preventing manifest injustice rather than reviewing the merits of arbitral decisions.

Legislative Amendments and Modernization

The 2015 Amendment: Addressing Systemic Issues

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, represented the first major legislative reform of the 1996 Act [6]. This amendment aimed to address several systemic issues that had emerged during the Act’s implementation, particularly concerning delays in arbitral proceedings and challenges in award enforcement.

The 2015 amendment introduced strict timelines for completing arbitral proceedings, mandating that awards should ordinarily be made within twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. This time limit could be extended by six months with party consent or by court order in exceptional circumstances. The amendment recognized that delays in arbitration defeated its primary advantage over traditional litigation.

The amendment also addressed the issue of arbitrator appointments, creating institutional mechanisms to ensure timely constitution of arbitral tribunals. The legislation empowered the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts to designate arbitral institutions for arbitrator appointments, reducing dependence on ad hoc arrangements that often led to delays.

The 2019 Amendment: Strengthening Enforcement

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, further refined the arbitration framework by addressing specific enforcement challenges [7]. This amendment established the Arbitration Council of India as an independent body to grade arbitral institutions, accredit arbitrators, and maintain professional standards in the arbitration community.

The 2019 amendment also introduced provisions for summary enforcement of awards, allowing courts to stay enforcement only in exceptional circumstances where the award is clearly against public policy or obtained through fraud. This reform aimed to reduce the number of frivolous challenges to arbitral awards that had been undermining the effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

The 2021 Amendment: Institutional Development

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021, continued the process of institutional strengthening by expanding the scope of arbitrable disputes and creating more robust mechanisms for institutional arbitration [8]. The amendment recognized that institutional arbitration generally provides more efficient case management and higher-quality arbitral proceedings compared to ad hoc arbitration.

The 2021 amendment also addressed specific concerns about emergency arbitrator provisions, allowing parties to seek urgent interim relief even before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This reform enhanced arbitration’s ability to provide effective relief in time-sensitive commercial disputes.

Regulatory Framework and Institutional Architecture

Court System and Supervisory Jurisdiction

The regulatory framework for arbitration in India operates through a well-defined hierarchical court system that provides supervisory jurisdiction while respecting arbitral autonomy. District courts typically handle matters relating to arbitrator appointments and interim measures during pending arbitration proceedings. High Courts exercise appellate jurisdiction over district court decisions and handle challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of India serves as the apex appellate authority for arbitration matters and has played a crucial role in developing arbitration jurisprudence through its interpretations of statutory provisions. The Supreme Court’s decisions have consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining the delicate balance between necessary judicial oversight and arbitral autonomy.

Arbitral Institutions and Professional Bodies

India has witnessed significant growth in arbitral institutions that provide administrative support and case management services for arbitration proceedings. The Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, and various sectoral institutions have emerged as important players in the arbitration ecosystem.

These institutions provide standardized arbitration rules, panels of qualified arbitrators, and professional case management services that enhance the efficiency and quality of arbitral proceedings. The development of institutional arbitration has been particularly important for complex commercial disputes that benefit from structured procedures and professional administration.

The Arbitration Council of India

The establishment of the Arbitration Council of India through the 2019 amendment created an important regulatory body for the arbitration community [9]. The Council’s mandate includes grading arbitral institutions, maintaining databases of arbitrators, and setting professional standards for arbitration practice.

The Council represents India’s commitment to creating a self-regulating arbitration ecosystem that maintains high professional standards while reducing dependence on court intervention for routine arbitration administration. The Council’s work is expected to enhance India’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and attract more international commercial arbitration to Indian institutions.

Contemporary Challenges and Enforcement Mechanisms

Award Enforcement and Challenges

The enforcement of arbitral awards continues to present challenges despite legislative reforms aimed at streamlining the process. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides grounds for challenging awards, including violations of due process, arbitrability issues, and conflicts with public policy. However, the broad interpretation of these grounds by some courts has led to extensive litigation over award enforcement.

Recent judicial trends have shown greater restraint in interfering with arbitral awards, particularly following Supreme Court guidance emphasizing that courts should not review awards on merits unless there are clear violations of fundamental fairness or legal principles. This evolving jurisprudence has improved the predictability and efficiency of award enforcement.

International Commercial Arbitration

India’s approach to international commercial arbitration has evolved significantly, particularly following the BALCO judgment’s clarification of territorial jurisdiction principles. The recognition and enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention has generally been effective, though challenges remain in cases involving public policy considerations or procedural irregularities.

The development of specialized commercial courts and the increasing sophistication of legal practitioners in arbitration matters have contributed to more efficient handling of international arbitration cases. India’s growing integration into global supply chains and commercial relationships has made effective international arbitration enforcement increasingly important for economic development.

Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

Technological Integration and Digital Arbitration

The arbitration community in India has increasingly embraced technological solutions, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on traditional hearing procedures. Virtual hearings, digital document management, and online case administration have become standard features of modern arbitration practice.

The integration of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies in arbitration procedures represents an emerging frontier that could further enhance efficiency and transparency in dispute resolution. These technological developments are likely to make arbitration more accessible and cost-effective, particularly for medium-sized commercial disputes.

Specialized Sectoral Arbitration

Various economic sectors in India have developed specialized arbitration mechanisms tailored to their specific needs and commercial practices. Construction, infrastructure, telecommunications, and financial services have established sectoral arbitration institutions and specialized arbitrator panels with relevant technical expertise.

This trend toward specialization reflects the recognition that effective arbitration requires not only legal expertise but also deep understanding of commercial practices and technical issues specific to particular industries. Specialized arbitration is expected to continue growing as India’s economy becomes more complex and sophisticated.

Conclusion

The evolution of arbitration law in India represents a remarkable transformation from colonial-era legislation to a modern, internationally aligned dispute resolution framework. The journey from the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 through the Arbitration Act of 1940 to the current Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and its subsequent amendments reflects India’s growing sophistication in commercial law and its commitment to creating an efficient dispute resolution environment.

The landmark judicial decisions, particularly the BALCO judgment, have provided crucial clarity on territorial jurisdiction and the relationship between Indian courts and international arbitration. The ongoing legislative reforms, including the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India and the emphasis on institutional arbitration, demonstrate India’s commitment to continuous improvement in its arbitration ecosystem.

Despite remaining challenges in award enforcement and the need for further development of arbitration infrastructure, India has made substantial progress in creating an arbitration-friendly environment that serves both domestic commercial interests and international business relationships. The future of arbitration in India appears promising, with technological integration, specialized sectoral development, and continued judicial support for arbitral autonomy likely to further enhance its effectiveness as a dispute resolution mechanism.

The success of India’s arbitration framework will ultimately depend on maintaining the delicate balance between necessary legal oversight and arbitral independence, while continuing to adapt to changing commercial practices and international standards. The foundation laid by decades of legislative reform and judicial development provides a solid basis for further growth and sophistication in India’s arbitration ecosystem.

References

[1] The Arbitration Act, 1940

[2] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Second Schedule

[3] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1978/3/a1996-26.pdf 

[4] Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (2012) 9 SCC 552, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173015163/ 

[5] Reliance Industries v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 3218, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/ 

[6] Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

[7] Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019

[8] Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021, Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/05/23/indias-arbitration-and-conciliation-amendment-act-2021-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/ 

[9] Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Available at: https://legalaffairs.gov.in/ 

The post Evolution and Transformation of Arbitration Law in India appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Indian legal system has long grappled with an overwhelming backlog of cases that has plagued courts at every level. With civil litigation often stretching beyond a decade before reaching resolution, the need for efficient alternatives to traditional court proceedings has become increasingly apparent. Among the various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available, conciliation has emerged as a particularly effective method for resolving disputes outside the courtroom while maintaining the relationships between parties and ensuring confidential, voluntary, and mutually acceptable outcomes.

Conciliation represents a structured yet flexible approach to dispute resolution where parties engage with the assistance of a neutral third party to explore settlement possibilities. Unlike arbitration, where an arbitrator imposes a binding decision, or litigation, where a judge delivers a verdict, conciliation empowers the disputing parties themselves to craft solutions that address their specific needs and interests. This fundamental characteristic makes conciliation especially valuable in commercial contexts where ongoing business relationships matter as much as the resolution of immediate disputes.

Understanding Conciliation: Conceptual Framework

Conciliation operates as a confidential, voluntary, and private dispute resolution process wherein a neutral conciliator facilitates negotiations between disputing parties to help them reach a negotiated settlement. The conciliator serves as a communication conduit, filtering out emotional and adversarial elements that often obstruct productive dialogue, allowing parties to focus on their core objectives and underlying interests rather than entrenched positions.

The terms “conciliation” and “mediation” are frequently used interchangeably within the Indian legal context, though subtle distinctions exist in international practice. What remains consistent across interpretations is that the conciliator lacks the authority to impose any settlement upon the parties. The conciliator’s function centers on breaking deadlocks, encouraging amicable resolutions, facilitating communication, and helping parties explore creative options they might not have considered independently.

One of the distinguishing features of conciliation is its informal nature. While arbitration is less formal than litigation, conciliation operates with even greater flexibility, allowing parties to structure proceedings according to their specific circumstances. This informality extends to venue selection, timing, procedural rules, and the manner in which information is exchanged and discussed.

The voluntary character of conciliation means that parties retain complete autonomy throughout the process. Either party may withdraw at any stage without prejudice to their legal position, ensuring that participation remains genuinely consensual rather than coerced. This freedom paradoxically often leads to higher settlement rates, as parties who choose to engage in conciliation typically possess genuine motivation to resolve their disputes amicably.

Legislative Framework Governing Conciliation in India

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The primary legislative instrument governing conciliation in India is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1]. This Act represented a watershed moment in Indian dispute resolution law, as it consolidated and streamlined provisions previously scattered across multiple statutes. The Act was initially promulgated as an Ordinance before receiving legislative approval, reflecting the urgency with which lawmakers sought to modernize India’s dispute resolution framework.

The 1996 Act was drafted substantially along the lines of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, bringing Indian law into alignment with international best practices. For the first time, Indian legislation provided statutory recognition to conciliation, dedicating an entire part of the Act to establishing elaborate rules governing conciliation proceedings.

Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically addresses conciliation, spanning sections 61 through 81. These provisions establish the foundational principles governing conciliation, including the appointment of conciliators, the commencement and conduct of proceedings, the role and function of conciliators, confidentiality requirements, termination procedures, and the status of settlement agreements. The Act explicitly provides that a settlement agreement reached through conciliation carries the same status and effect as an arbitral award, making it enforceable as if it were a decree of court [2].

This legislative framework ensures that parties need not have a pre-existing conciliation clause or arbitration agreement to refer their disputes to conciliation. Parties can agree to conciliation even after a dispute has arisen, provided both parties give written consent. This flexibility significantly expands the potential applicability of conciliation across diverse dispute scenarios.

Code of Civil Procedure Amendment of 2002

Recognizing that legislative enablement of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms alone would prove insufficient without judicial integration, Parliament amended the Code of Civil Procedure in 2002 to incorporate ADR methods into the litigation process itself. The insertion of Section 89 into the Code of Civil Procedure marked a significant shift in judicial philosophy, transforming courts from purely adjudicatory bodies into facilitators of dispute resolution [3].

Section 89 empowers courts, where it appears that elements exist which may be acceptable to the parties, to formulate terms of a possible settlement and refer the matter for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement through Lok Adalat, or mediation. This provision integrates alternative dispute resolution directly into civil proceedings, making it an integral component of the judicial process rather than an external alternative.

The amendment reflected Parliament’s acknowledgment that India’s court system, burdened with an overwhelming backlog accumulated over decades, required more than incremental procedural improvements. By mandating judicial officers to actively consider and facilitate alternative dispute resolution at appropriate stages of litigation, the amendment sought to reduce the burden on courts while simultaneously providing litigants with faster, more cost-effective resolution options.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Beyond commercial disputes, conciliation plays a vital role in resolving labour and industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Act established a framework for conciliation officers and boards of conciliation specifically tasked with resolving disputes between employers and workmen. The Act requires that before any industrial dispute can be referred to labour courts or industrial tribunals for adjudication, conciliation proceedings must generally be attempted. This mandatory conciliation requirement reflects the legislature’s recognition that industrial harmony is best preserved through negotiated settlements rather than imposed decisions.

The Conciliation Process: Practical Application

The conciliation process typically unfolds through several distinct phases, each designed to facilitate communication, identify interests, explore options, and ultimately reach mutually acceptable solutions.

Selection and Appointment of Conciliator

The process begins with selecting a conciliator who serves as a neutral third party. Parties may select a conciliator themselves through mutual agreement, or they may seek assistance from an institution specializing in alternative dispute resolution. The choice of conciliator often proves crucial to the success of conciliation, as the conciliator’s skills, experience, industry knowledge, and interpersonal abilities directly influence the parties’ willingness to engage constructively.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows parties to agree on procedures for appointing conciliators, including appointing a sole conciliator or multiple conciliators. Where parties cannot agree on appointment procedures, the Act provides default mechanisms to ensure proceedings can commence despite initial disagreements.

Initial Session and Procedural Framework

At the initial session, fundamental procedural matters are addressed. Decisions are made regarding who will attend the conciliation proceedings, whether parties will be accompanied by legal counsel or other advisors, the location and timing of sessions, and how costs will be allocated. Typically, parties share the costs of initial sessions equally, though alternative arrangements may be negotiated.

During this initial phase, the conciliator explains the conciliation process to all participants, ensuring everyone understands the voluntary nature of proceedings, confidentiality protections, the conciliator’s role and limitations, and the potential outcomes. Ground rules emphasizing courtesy, respect, and propriety are established, creating an atmosphere conducive to productive dialogue rather than adversarial confrontation.

Issue Identification and Information Exchange

Following the procedural groundwork, parties are encouraged to present their perspectives on the dispute. Unlike litigation or arbitration, where presentation of cases follows strict evidentiary rules and adversarial structures, conciliation allows for more open-ended discussion. Parties can express their concerns, frustrations, and priorities without the formal constraints that characterize adjudicatory proceedings.

The conciliator actively listens during this phase, refraining from judgment while identifying the core issues underlying the dispute. Often, what parties initially present as their primary concerns mask deeper interests or needs that must be addressed for meaningful resolution. The conciliator’s skill in identifying these underlying interests proves critical to moving beyond surface-level positions toward substantive solutions.

One significant advantage of conciliation is the confidentiality of sessions. Information disclosed during conciliation cannot be used as evidence in subsequent arbitral, judicial, or other proceedings. This protection encourages parties to speak candidly, explore creative options, and make offers they might otherwise hesitate to make in formal proceedings where every statement could potentially be used against them.

Private Sessions and Shuttle Diplomacy

Where parties are reluctant to disclose certain information in joint sessions, or where direct communication between parties has become so strained that joint sessions prove counterproductive, the conciliator may conduct private sessions with each party separately. During these private sessions, the conciliator can explore sensitive issues, test potential settlement parameters, and draw out information that parties might be unwilling to share in the presence of their adversaries.

Crucially, information disclosed during private sessions can be kept confidential if the disclosing party so requests. This confidentiality enables the conciliator to understand each party’s true interests, concerns, and settlement boundaries without forcing premature disclosure that might harden positions or damage negotiating leverage.

Through a process sometimes called “shuttle diplomacy,” the conciliator moves between parties, carrying proposals and counter-proposals, testing reactions to potential solutions, and gradually narrowing the gap between parties’ positions. This iterative process allows parties to explore settlement possibilities without the risks associated with making direct offers that might be rejected or exploited.

Brainstorming and Creative Problem-Solving

A distinctive feature of effective conciliation is the emphasis on creative problem-solving. Rather than viewing disputes as zero-sum contests where one party’s gain necessarily means another’s loss, conciliation encourages parties to identify mutually beneficial solutions that might not be available through adjudication.

The conciliator facilitates brainstorming sessions where parties explore multiple options without immediately committing to any particular solution. This approach helps parties move away from fixed positions toward a focus on underlying interests. For example, in a commercial dispute over payment terms, parties might discover that their real interests involve cash flow management, risk allocation, and maintaining business relationships rather than simply the specific payment schedule that triggered the dispute.

By expanding the range of potential solutions beyond the binary outcomes typically available through litigation, conciliation often achieves results that better serve all parties’ actual interests. Settlement agreements might include non-monetary terms, future business arrangements, public statements, confidentiality provisions, or other elements that courts would lack authority to order but that prove valuable to the parties themselves.

Settlement Agreement and Enforcement

When parties reach consensus on settlement terms, a written agreement is prepared documenting their understanding. This settlement agreement should be clear, comprehensive, and specific, leaving no ambiguity about parties’ respective obligations. Both parties typically sign the agreement, often in the presence of the conciliator who may also sign as witness to the settlement.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a settlement agreement reached through conciliation has the same status and effect as an arbitral award. This provision is crucial, as it means the settlement agreement becomes enforceable through the same mechanisms available for enforcing arbitral awards and court decrees. If a party fails to honor the settlement agreement, the other party can seek enforcement through courts without needing to relitigate the underlying dispute.

Post-Settlement Monitoring

Effective conciliation does not necessarily end with the signing of a settlement agreement. Monitoring and reviewing implementation of the settlement often proves valuable, particularly in complex commercial relationships where settlement terms may require ongoing performance rather than a single act. Some conciliation processes include provisions for the conciliator to remain available to assist with questions about interpretation or implementation of settlement terms, though the conciliator’s role at this stage is typically limited to clarification rather than adjudication of new disputes.

Types of Disputes Suitable for Conciliation

Conciliation proves particularly effective for certain categories of disputes, though its flexibility makes it adaptable to a broad range of conflict situations.

Commercial and Contractual Disputes

Commercial disputes involving contract interpretation, performance issues, payment disputes, and breach of contract allegations are especially well-suited for conciliation. In these contexts, parties often have ongoing business relationships they wish to preserve, making the collaborative nature of conciliation preferable to the adversarial character of litigation. Commercial parties also typically value the speed and confidentiality that conciliation offers, as protracted public litigation can damage business reputations and disrupt operations.

Financial and Banking Disputes

Disputes between financial institutions and their customers, between lenders and borrowers, or involving investment matters can be effectively resolved through conciliation. The financial sector’s complexity often means that litigation produces suboptimal outcomes, as courts may lack specialized expertise to appreciate nuanced financial arrangements. Conciliators with financial expertise can help parties craft solutions that account for financial realities while maintaining commercial relationships.

Real Estate and Property Disputes

Property disputes, including landlord-tenant disagreements, partnership property matters, and real estate transaction disputes, frequently benefit from conciliation. These disputes often involve parties who must maintain ongoing relationships or who have strong interests beyond the immediate legal issues. Conciliation allows exploration of creative solutions such as modified payment terms, property exchanges, or reconfigured arrangements that litigation could not provide.

Employment and Service Disputes

Workplace disputes involving termination, discrimination, harassment, wage disputes, or other employment matters are increasingly resolved through conciliation. Employment relationships are inherently personal and ongoing, making the collaborative approach of conciliation more appropriate than adversarial litigation. Additionally, both employers and employees often value the confidentiality that conciliation provides, protecting reputations and avoiding publicity that litigation inevitably brings.

Intellectual Property Disputes

Disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, licensing agreements, and technology transfers can be effectively addressed through conciliation. The specialized nature of intellectual property and the importance of preserving business relationships in technology and creative industries make conciliation attractive. Parties can craft licensing arrangements, cross-licensing agreements, or other solutions that litigation could not impose but that serve their mutual interests.

Family and Matrimonial Disputes

While family disputes involve unique emotional dimensions, conciliation has proven effective in resolving issues such as divorce settlements, child custody arrangements, division of matrimonial property, and maintenance disputes. The collaborative nature of conciliation often produces more durable solutions than contested litigation, particularly where parties must maintain ongoing relationships due to children or shared interests.

Consumer Disputes

Consumer protection matters involving defective products, service failures, or unfair trade practices can be resolved through conciliation, offering consumers faster relief than traditional litigation while allowing businesses to address legitimate grievances without costly legal proceedings.

Advantages of Conciliation Over Traditional Litigation

Conciliation offers numerous advantages that explain its growing adoption as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

Speed and Efficiency

Conciliation can be scheduled at an early stage in a dispute, often before positions have hardened and legal costs have escalated. Cases that might take years to resolve through litigation can often be settled within weeks or months through conciliation. This speed benefits parties by reducing the period of uncertainty, allowing them to move forward with their personal or business affairs rather than remaining mired in protracted legal proceedings.

Cost Effectiveness

The costs associated with conciliation are substantially lower than litigation expenses. Parties save on court fees, extensive legal representation costs, expert witness fees, and the indirect costs of staff time and management attention diverted to litigation. By sharing conciliation costs and resolving disputes quickly, parties preserve resources that can be deployed toward productive purposes rather than consumed by legal conflict.

Preservation of Relationships

Perhaps the most significant advantage of conciliation is its capacity to preserve relationships between parties. Unlike litigation, which is inherently adversarial and often destroys whatever goodwill might have existed between parties, conciliation’s collaborative approach allows parties to resolve their immediate dispute while maintaining the capacity for future interaction. This proves especially valuable in commercial contexts where parties may wish to continue business relationships, family contexts where ongoing interaction is inevitable, or employment contexts where reputational considerations matter.

Confidentiality

Conciliation proceedings are confidential, with information disclosed during conciliation protected from use in subsequent proceedings. This confidentiality encourages candid discussion and creative problem-solving while protecting parties from the reputational damage that public litigation often causes. Businesses can resolve disputes without exposing proprietary information, trade secrets, or internal practices to public scrutiny. Individuals can address personal matters without media attention or public judgment.

Party Control and Flexibility

Unlike litigation or arbitration, where third-party decision-makers impose outcomes on parties, conciliation keeps control firmly in the parties’ hands. Parties craft their own solutions, ensuring outcomes reflect their actual needs and priorities rather than legal principles that may not account for practical realities. This control extends to procedural matters as well, with parties able to structure proceedings to suit their circumstances rather than conforming to rigid court procedures.

Creative Solutions

Conciliation enables creative solutions that go beyond the remedies courts can order. Settlement agreements can include non-monetary terms, future business arrangements, public statements, apologies, structural changes, or any other terms parties find valuable. This flexibility often produces more satisfying outcomes than the limited remedies available through adjudication.

High Success Rates

In jurisdictions that have embraced conciliation, success rates are remarkably high. Parties who voluntarily engage in conciliation with genuine motivation to resolve disputes typically achieve settlements at rates exceeding seventy percent. This high success rate reflects the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving when parties approach negotiations in good faith with skilled neutral facilitation.

Judicial Recognition and Enforceability

The enforceability of conciliation settlements represents a crucial aspect of the process’s effectiveness. Under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when parties sign a settlement agreement, the conciliation proceedings are terminated. Section 74 provides that the settlement agreement is binding on the parties and has the same status and effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 of the Act.

This legislative provision means that settlement agreements reached through conciliation are enforceable through the same mechanisms available for arbitral awards. A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement can approach courts, which will treat the agreement as if it were a court decree. This enforcement mechanism provides parties with confidence that conciliation settlements are not merely moral commitments but legally binding obligations backed by judicial enforcement power.

Indian courts have consistently upheld the binding nature of conciliation settlements and have refused to reopen disputes that parties resolved through conciliation. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the finality of settlements reached through such processes [4]. The Court observed that when parties have voluntarily agreed to resolve their disputes through alternative mechanisms, courts should encourage such settlements rather than permitting parties to relitigate resolved matters.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite its numerous advantages, conciliation faces certain challenges and limitations that parties should understand before choosing this dispute resolution path.

Voluntary Nature and Power Imbalances

The voluntary nature of conciliation, while generally advantageous, can become problematic when significant power imbalances exist between parties. A stronger party might use the informal nature of conciliation to pressure weaker parties into unfavorable settlements. While skilled conciliators can help address power imbalances, the lack of formal procedural protections available in litigation means vulnerable parties might face disadvantages.

No Binding Decision Without Consent

Because conciliators cannot impose solutions, conciliation only succeeds when parties genuinely wish to resolve their disputes. If one party participates without genuine commitment to settlement, conciliation efforts may prove fruitless, resulting in wasted time and expense. In such cases, parties ultimately must resort to litigation or arbitration, making conciliation an unsuccessful detour rather than an efficient resolution path.

Limited Availability of Qualified Conciliators

The success of conciliation depends heavily on conciliator skill, experience, and expertise. However, India faces a shortage of well-trained, experienced conciliators, particularly outside major urban centers. The absence of standardized training programs and certification requirements means conciliator quality varies significantly, potentially undermining the effectiveness of conciliation proceedings.

Enforcement of International Settlements

While domestic conciliation settlements receive clear enforcement mechanisms under Indian law, international conciliation settlements face more complex enforcement challenges. Unlike the New York Convention, which provides for international enforcement of arbitral awards, no comparable international framework exists for conciliation settlements. The 2018 Singapore Convention on Mediation represents progress toward international enforcement, but its implementation remains limited [5].

Lack of Precedent and Legal Development

Because conciliation settlements are confidential and do not produce published decisions, they do not contribute to legal precedent development. This lack of precedent can be problematic in cases raising novel legal questions where parties and the broader business community would benefit from authoritative legal guidance.

Comparison with Other Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Understanding how conciliation differs from other dispute resolution mechanisms helps parties make informed choices about the most appropriate process for their specific disputes.

Conciliation versus Arbitration

While both conciliation and arbitration are creatures of consent, they differ fundamentally in outcome. Arbitration produces binding decisions imposed by arbitrators, whereas conciliation produces voluntary settlements crafted by parties themselves. Arbitration resembles litigation in its adversarial structure and focus on legal rights, while conciliation emphasizes interests, relationships, and creative problem-solving. Parties seeking a definitive resolution of legal questions or lacking trust necessary for collaborative negotiation may prefer arbitration, while those valuing relationships and control over outcomes may favor conciliation.

Conciliation versus Mediation

In the Indian context, conciliation and mediation are treated as interchangeable terms, though international practice sometimes distinguishes them. Where distinctions are drawn, mediation is characterized as more facilitative, with mediators helping parties communicate but remaining strictly neutral about outcomes. Conciliation is sometimes described as more evaluative, with conciliators potentially offering opinions about the strength of parties’ cases or appropriate settlement terms. However, these distinctions lack significance in Indian law, which uses the terms synonymously.

Conciliation versus Lok Adalat

Lok Adalats, or people’s courts, represent a uniquely Indian institution for resolving disputes through conciliation at the grassroots level. While Lok Adalats share conciliation’s emphasis on voluntary settlement, they differ in structure and scope. Lok Adalats are organized by legal services authorities and typically handle high volumes of smaller disputes, often involving government entities. Traditional conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act handles more complex commercial disputes and follows more structured procedures. Lok Adalat settlements are final and binding, not appealable, and are treated as court decrees.

Conciliation versus Negotiation

Direct negotiation between parties shares conciliation’s emphasis on voluntary settlement but lacks the neutral third-party facilitator. Negotiations can fail when parties become deadlocked, communication breaks down, or emotions prevent rational evaluation of options. Conciliation addresses these limitations by introducing a skilled neutral who can facilitate communication, suggest alternatives, and help parties overcome obstacles to settlement.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

The landscape of conciliation in India continues to evolve, with several recent developments shaping its future trajectory.

Institutional Development

Various institutions have emerged to provide conciliation services, including the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, and specialized industry-specific dispute resolution bodies. These institutions provide trained conciliators, established procedures, administrative support, and quality assurance, making conciliation more accessible and reliable.

Integration with Commercial Courts

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which established specialized courts for commercial disputes, also mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes below specified value thresholds [6]. This mandatory mediation requirement reflects legislative recognition that many commercial disputes can be resolved more efficiently through facilitated negotiation than through adjudication.

Singapore Convention on Mediation

India signed the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, commonly known as the Singapore Convention, in 2019, though it has not yet ratified the treaty [7]. When implemented, this Convention will provide a framework for cross-border enforcement of mediation settlements, potentially increasing the attractiveness of conciliation for international commercial disputes.

Technology-Enabled Conciliation

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of technology-enabled dispute resolution, including online conciliation. While initially adopted out of necessity during lockdowns, virtual conciliation has demonstrated advantages including reduced costs, greater scheduling flexibility, and improved accessibility. The future likely involves hybrid models combining virtual and in-person sessions based on parties’ needs and dispute characteristics.

Specialized Conciliation for Emerging Disputes

As new categories of disputes emerge in areas such as technology, data privacy, e-commerce, and cryptocurrency, specialized conciliation mechanisms are being developed. These specialized processes feature conciliators with domain expertise and procedures tailored to the unique characteristics of disputes in rapidly evolving fields.

Conclusion

Conciliation has established itself as a vital component of India’s dispute resolution ecosystem, offering parties a collaborative, efficient, and relationship-preserving alternative to traditional litigation. The legislative framework provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, combined with judicial recognition of conciliation settlements and growing institutional support, has created an environment conducive to conciliation’s continued growth.

The advantages of conciliation including speed, cost-effectiveness, confidentiality, preservation of relationships, and party control over outcomes make it particularly well-suited to commercial disputes, though its flexibility allows application across diverse dispute types. As India continues to develop its alternative dispute resolution infrastructure, enhance conciliator training, and adapt to technological innovations, conciliation’s role in providing accessible justice is likely to expand further.

For parties facing disputes, conciliation represents not merely an alternative to litigation but often a superior choice that addresses not only the immediate legal issues but also the underlying interests and relationships that matter most to parties themselves. As awareness of conciliation’s benefits grows and institutional capabilities strengthen, this dispute resolution mechanism will increasingly fulfill its promise of delivering efficient, effective, and satisfying justice.

References

[1] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

[2] Section 74, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 

[3] Section 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended) 

[4] Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24

[5] United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation), available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements 

[6] The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 

[7] UNCITRAL Singapore Convention on Mediation: Status, available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements/status 

The post Conciliation in ADR Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996: Procedure appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.