Arbitration is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. ADR methods enjoy significant advantages such as lower costs, greater flexibility of process, higher confidentiality, greater likelihood of settlement, choice of forum, choice of solutions etc. Having said that one of the most popular widely recognised and practised forms of ADR is Arbitration.
Though changes in law have made arbitration a popular alternative to litigation, it has to be kept in mind that most arbitration in India is ad-hoc arbitration with institutional arbitration still a minor proportion of all arbitration conducted.
Presently India lacks institutions which are at par with organizations of international repute like ICC (International Court of Arbitration), LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, etc. As a result, it has been seen quite often that foreign companies entering into business contracts with Indian companies opt for a foreign arbitration centre. IDRC is committed to dispel this notion.
Excerpts from Report of High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India, 2017, Chairman, Justice B. N. Srikrishna, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India-
‘Lack of credible arbitral institutions: While there are established arbitral institutions in India, these arbitral institutions lack access to quality legal expertise and lack exposure to international best practices. For this reason, the rules and practices followed by these arbitral institutions are often outdated and inadequate. The infrastructure and support provided by arbitral institutions is largely inadequate. Most arbitral institutions can only provide hearing venues with basic facilities and lack more advanced facilities such as multi-screen video conferencing, sound-proof caucus rooms, audio / video recording, court recorders, etc. Further, because arbitral institutions are staffed mostly by persons without adequate knowledge and experience of arbitration, the quality and range of support available from
arbitral institutions to parties and arbitrators are invariably limited — even in matters relating to the interpretation and application of the rules and practices followed by arbitral institutions. Thus, as such, arbitral institutions do not provide much by way of value addition’.
Today Institutional Arbitration Centres like Indian Dispute Resolution - IDRC are leading from the forefront with the most advanced cloud-based dispute resolution services in India.
The IDRC has been approved by NITI Aayog and is also empanelled with Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India as a specialized arbitral body at the national level with pan India presence. IDRC with its headquarter in Connaught Place, New Delhi and Corporate Office in Marine Drive, Mumbai is committed to promote amicable, efficient and cost-effective settlement of commercial disputes by adopting of arbitration, mediation and conciliation in both physical and virtual modes.
Today, IDRC is not only the leading digital Arbitration Institution in India, but also has its Affiliate Centres pan India but also in Asia Pacific and Europe, handling hundreds of domestic and international arbitrations. IDRC provides services like Expert Determination and Early Neutral Evaluation as also education and training in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through its Indian Institute of Arbitration – IIArb, Indian Institute of Mediation – IIMed and Indian Institute of Dispute Resolution – IIDR.
Change in Legal Framework
In 2015 Parliament amended Arb & Conc. Act, 1996 when the Fifth & Seventh Schedules were introduced from S. 12 of the Act, which provides for grounds of challenge to an arbitrator. These Schedules lists out circumstances, which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators. They provide that the arbitrator should not be a Manager, Director or part of the management in one of the disputing parties.
Some of the stipulations in the Amended law which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators are-
1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.
2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.
3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties.
4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties.
5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration……..