INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Amit Mishra and Mitakshara Goyal, Svarniti Law Offices
Emergency Arbitrators Indian courts have enforced emergency arbitrator orders in practice, as seen in the Supreme Court’s decision in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd. , where an emergency arbitrator’s order under SIAC Rules was treated as enforceable in India. The Delhi International Arbitration Centre Rules, 2023, provide for the appointment of emergency arbi - trators and outline detailed procedures, including the types of relief they can grant and the enforceability of their orders. The 2024 Amendment Bill proposes to formally recog - nise emergency arbitrators and their orders. It allows courts to confirm, modify or vacate ad interim meas - ures granted by emergency arbitrators, aligning with the evolving practice of treating emergency arbitrator orders similarly to those of regular tribunals. Binding Nature and Court Intervention Orders of emergency arbitrators under institutional rules are intended to be binding and enforceable, although the current ACA does not expressly clarify their status. The 2024 Amendment Bill aims to remove this ambiguity by giving statutory recognition to emer - gency arbitrators and their orders. 6.3 Security for Costs There is no mention of security for costs in the ACA. India strongly upholds the principle of party auton - omy in arbitration. Under Indian law, parties are free to determine the procedure that the arbitral tribunal will follow during the proceedings. This autonomy is limited only by certain mandatory provisions set out in Part I of the ACA, which cannot be overridden by agreement. In M/s Isc Projects v Steel Authority of India , the Del - hi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lacking the signature of one arbitrator, with no explanation provided, holding that signatures are a substantive requirement under the ACA as well. 7. Procedure 7.1 Governing Rules
If the parties do not agree on a specific procedure, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to conduct the proceedings in a manner it deems appropriate, again subject only to the mandatory requirements of the ACA. Importantly, arbitral tribunals in India are not required to strictly adhere to the national rules of evi - dence or civil procedure, allowing for greater flexibility and efficiency in the arbitration process. 7.2 Procedural Steps The ACA sets out several procedural steps for arbitra - tion in India, many of which are non-mandatory and can be modified by party agreement or by adopting institutional rules such as those of the DIAC or MIAC. The process typically begins when the respondent receives a notice of arbitration, formally commencing the proceedings. After initiation, the parties attempt to constitute the arbitral tribunal according to their agreed procedure. If they are unable to do so, the default mechanism under the ACA allows for court intervention to appoint the arbitrator. If the parties have not specified the number of arbitrators, the tribunal will consist of a sole arbitra - tor by default. Once the tribunal is in place, the claimant submits a statement of claim. This is followed by the respond - ent’s statement of defence, which may include coun - terclaims or set-offs. Both parties may attach sup - porting documents. The ACA requires pleadings to be completed within six months from the date the arbitrators receive written notice of their appointment. Following the completion of pleadings, the tribunal conducts oral hearings for evidence and arguments. In domestic arbitrations, the tribunal must deliver its award within 12 months of the completion of plead - ings, with the possibility of a six-month extension by party agreement. Any further extension requires court approval. The flexibility of the ACA allows parties significant control over the procedure, subject only to a few man - datory provisions.
332 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook