What are salient features of arbitral award?
Answers
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
To remove certain practical difficulties in the application of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and to give a boost to institutional arbitration vis-à-vis ad hoc arbitration, a High-Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice B.H. Srikrishna, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, was appointed by the Central Government. The High-Level Committee submitted its report on July 30, 2017, and the same was approved by the Union Cabinet in March 2018, to be tabled before the Parliament.
The salient features of the proposed amendments which are as per the report of the High-Level Committee are as follows:
Speedy appointment of arbitrators is to be facilitated through designated arbitral institutions by the Supreme Court or the High Court, without any requirement to approach the court in this regard. It is envisaged that the parties may directly approach the institutions designated by the Supreme Court for International Commercial arbitrations and in other cases the concerned High Courts.
The amendment provides for creation of an independent body namely the Arbitration Council of India (ACI), which will grade arbitral institutions and accredit arbitrators by laying down norms and take all necessary steps to promote and encourage arbitration, conciliation, mediation and other ADR Mechanisms and for that purpose formulate policies and guidelines for the establishment, operation and maintenance of uniform professional standards in respect of all matters relating to arbitration and ADR mechanisms. The Council shall also maintain an electronic depository of all arbitral awards.
The ACI shall be a body corporate. The Chairman of ACI shall be a person who has been a judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice or Judge of any High Court or any eminent person. Further, the other Members would include an eminent academician etc. besides other Government nominees.
Section 29A provides that an award must be made within 12 months from the Tribunal entering upon reference, extendable to a period of 18 months by party consent, failing which the mandate would terminate. Any extension over 18 months can only be obtained with the Court's permission. However, an important proposal is made to amend sub section (1) of section 29A by excluding International Arbitration from the binding of timeline due to criticism received from International institutions. Further, it is also proposed sensibly that the time limit of 12 months for domestic arbitrations shall start from the completion of the pleadings of the parties and not from the date of entering the reference.
A new section 42A, is proposed to be inserted to provide that the arbitrator and the arbitral institutions shall keep confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings except award. Further, a new section 42B is proposed to protect an Arbitrator from suit or other legal proceedings for any action or omission done in good faith in the course of arbitration proceedings.
A new section 87, is proposed to be inserted to clarify that unless parties agree otherwise, the Amendment Act, 2015, shall not apply to (a) Arbitral proceedings which have commenced before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015 (b) Court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such arbitral proceedings irrespective of whether such court proceedings commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015, and shall apply only to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015, and to court proceedings arising out of or in relation to such arbitral proceedings.