INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Amit Mishra and Mitakshara Goyal, Svarniti Law Offices
• Part I deals mainly with domestic arbitration and does not generally apply to international or foreign- seated arbitrations; • Part II addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and international arbitra - tion; • Part III covers conciliation; and • Part IV contains supplementary provisions. The preamble of the ACA explicitly states that the Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, aiming to implement its principles within the Indian legal frame - work. The Act adopts the Model Law not only for arbi - tration but also for conciliation, thereby aligning India’s arbitration regime with international standards. While the ACA largely mirrors the UNCITRAL Model Law, it also introduces several notable differences. For instance, the ACA imposes a strict time limit for making awards in domestic arbitrations, of 12 months from the completion of pleadings. This is extendable by six months with party consent, and further only by court approval. No such limit applies to international arbitrations. After several amendments, Section 8 of the ACA restricts Indian courts from refusing referral only if there is prima facie no valid arbitration agreement, thus narrowing the scope of judicial inquiry compared to the Model Law, Article 8 of which allows courts to refer parties to arbitration unless the agreement is found to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The ACA also imposes a broader duty of disclosure on prospective arbitrators. Arbitrators must disclose not only any circumstances that could raise doubts about their impartiality, but also any factors that might affect their ability to dedicate sufficient time and complete the proceedings within a 12-month period; this obliga -
by a 4:1 majority, clarified that Indian courts now have limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sec - tions 34 and 37 of the ACA. This marks a departure from the earlier position, where courts were gener - ally restricted to either setting aside or upholding an award, without the ability to alter its terms. The Supreme Court emphasised that this power of modification is to be exercised only in exceptional and narrowly defined circumstances, ensuring that the autonomy of the arbitral process is largely pre - served while allowing courts to correct manifest errors or injustices in awards. The 2024 Amendment Bill to amend the ACA is still pending before the Indian legislature, proposing the following changes. • Introduction of emergency arbitration: the Bill formally recognises emergency arbitrators and per - mits parties to seek interim relief from them before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Orders from emergency arbitrators will be enforceable as those of a regular tribunal. • Establishment of an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal: a new Appellate Arbitral Tribunal is proposed to hear challenges to arbitral awards, offering par - ties an alternative to court proceedings for such challenges. However, if parties opt for this tribunal, recourse to the courts is not available. • Enhanced role for arbitral institutions: the Bill empowers arbitral institutions to perform several functions previously vested in courts, such as extending timelines for issuing awards, adjusting arbitrators’ fees in case of delays, and substituting arbitrators. • Removal of Arbitration Council of India’s grading role: the responsibility of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) to grade arbitral institutions is proposed to be removed, focusing the ACI more on policy development. • Clearer timelines: the following time limits are pro - posed: (a) 60 days for courts to dispose of applications to refer disputes to arbitration (Section 8); (b) 30 days for arbitral tribunals to dispose of jurisdictional objections (Section 16); and (c) 60 days for appeals against orders related to
tion is not found in the Model Law. 2.2 Changes to National Law
There has been a significant shift in the extent of judi - cial intervention allowed in arbitral awards following the landmark April 2025 Supreme Court judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Lim- ited . In this decision, a five-judge Constitution Bench,
326 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook