Emergency Arbitrator: Indian Prospects

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava

International commercial arbitration is one of the most favourite mode of dispute resolution in world for resolving commercial disputes. Speed and cost are two important features what makes arbitrationa sought-after mode for dispute resolution because in conventional dispute resolution by courts ‘Remedy becomes worse than malady’ due to delay and cost. Legalism and authoritative courts in Anglo Saxon societies make the justice dilatory and expensive which is termed analogically as a disease of ‘Adversariasis’. Judicial minimalism is encouraged by entrepreneurs and business class of world which results in enhanced thrust on international commercial arbitration. In any arbitration interim measures are sine quo non. The irreparable loss and balance of convenience demands intervention by authoritative body to order and issue processes which can binds parties and third parties. In such cases unless interim measures are sought by municipal national courts no effective and binding interim remedies can be granted to the parties and third parties. The arbitrator once appointed is competent enough to grant interim measures and it can also decide about its jurisdiction based on doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. However, if before the appointment of arbitrator, the need of urgent interim measures arises then obviously parties have to go to the municipal national courts but this judicial intervention is not the intent of parties as they are seeking judicial minimalism. In such situations the urgent interim measures can be granted by emergency arbitrator. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is silent about emergency arbitrator but Delhi and Bombay High Courts have given some pragmatic judgments, making the provision of emergency arbitrator, a reality. The real problem in emergency arbitrator is how one can grant interim relief even without being in existence i.e. when arbitrator itself is non est. ICC, SIAC and LCIA provide for emergency arbitrator. In this paper the author has tried to make an analytical and comparative overview of emergency arbitrator in Indian Perspective.

This chapter examines the nature of international commercial arbitration and its distinguishing features; the harmonisation of the law of international commercial arbitration; international arbitration and the conflict of laws; the review of arbitral awards; and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Consideration is given to the contribution made by the UNCITRAL Model law on International Commercial Arbitration and to the rules of various arbitral institutions (such as the ICC) to the harmonisation of arbitral law and practice. Also examined is the relationship between arbitration and national courts and national law, particularly in the context of the debate over delocalisation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 116-130
Author(s):  
Serhii Kravtsov ◽  
Nelli Golubeva

The main reason for dispute in international commercial arbitration is the existence of an arbitration agreement concluded between the parties to a foreign trade agreement. The procedure of dispute resolution in international commercial arbitration will depend on the extent to which this arbitration agreement is concluded correctly in accordance with the norms of international and national law. Quite often, in the law enforcement activities of both national courts and arbitrations, there are questions about the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. In different countries, this issue is addressed ambiguously. In one case, national law takes precedence, and, accordingly, national courts are empowered to consider the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. In other cases, however, the autonomy of the arbitration agreement is a priority aspect of the consideration of any procedural issues by international commercial arbitration as the only and indisputable body authorised by the parties to the foreign trade agreement to consider a particular dispute. The article analyses doctrinal and legislative approaches to this issue, in which the authors come to the logical conclusion that national courts do not consider the validity, effectiveness, and enforceability of an arbitration agreement.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Garnett

International commercial arbitration has long been a popular method for resolving cross-border business disputes. The opportunity for parties to choose their adjudicators and the dispute resolution procedure, the scope for privacy and the greater capacity for enforcement of awards compared to court judgments are all important reasons that parties prefer international arbitration over litigation. Reinforcing this trend in favour of international commercial arbitration has been a general consensus among national courts and legislatures that support, rather than interference, should be provided to the arbitral process. Such a philosophy is apparent, for example, in the requirements in the widely adopted New York Convention for States to recognize and enforce both foreign arbitration agreements and awards, and in international instruments such as the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which authorize national courts to assist, rather than intervene, in the conduct of arbitrations within their borders. Moreover, international commercial arbitration has proven to be sufficiently flexible as a dispute resolution method to be used both in disputes between private parties, and between private and State entities.


International commercial arbitration is an alternative method of dispute resolution. It is regarding disputes arising out of commercial transactions conducted across national boundaries and it allows the parties to bypass litigation in their national courts. The aim of the researcher is to understand how the position of London as the favoured seat of Arbitration will change after Brexit. Secondly, the paper also focuses on the use of international arbitration as a tool to solve investor-state disputes. The present paper was analysed through the non-doctrinal research methodology and empirical and descriptive method of research was used. The present analysis was made through random sampling method where the survey was taken from common public, professionals, etc through a structured questionnaire. The sample size in the present analysis is 1669 samples. The research tools used in the present paper are cross tabulation, chi-square and frequency. It can be concluded that the position of London as the popular seat of arbitration will not be affected as the English Law is generally considered as the immediate choice of law for around most of the commercial contracts. Secondly, as far as investorstate dispute resolution is considered, arbitration can become a popular choice in future after the amendments were made in 2017 to make it more transparent and cost efficient.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document