Enforcing international arbitral awards in
India: Challenges and judicial trends under the arbitration and conciliation
Act
Mukesh Singh Yadav1*,
Prof. Seema Sharma2
1 Research Scholar,
Department of Law, MMH College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
mukeshyadav.eurolife@gmail.com
2 Professor, Department of Law, MMH College, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh
Abstract:
In
recent years, international arbitration has emerged as an indispensable method
for resolving disputes that include multiple countries because it provides
impartiality, efficiency, and finality. In 1996, India passed the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, in order to
bring its legal system in line with international norms, acknowledging the
significance of arbitration in today's globalised economy. To make it easier to
recognise and enforce foreign arbitral rulings, the Act combines provisions of
the New York Convention (1958) and the Geneva Convention (1927). Judicial
meddling, delays, an overly broad interpretation of the "public
policy" exception, and a lack of institutional support are some of the
problems that enforcement in India faces, despite the solid legislative basis.
But there has been a trend in the judiciary towards a more enforcement-oriented
stance, with landmark decisions in cases like BALCO, Shri Lal Mahal, and Vijay
Karia bolstering international standards. Efficiency, impartiality, and
institutionalisation were further fortified by legislative revisions in 2019,
and 2021. This study delves into India's achievements and ongoing challenges,
coming to the conclusion that in order to establish India as a prominent
arbitration centre, constant judicial restraint and strong institutional
processes are crucial.
Keywords:
Arbitration; International Arbitral Awards; Enforcement of Foreign Awards;
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; UNCITRAL Model Law; Judicial Trends.
INTRODUCTION
Arbitration has been recognised for a long time as one
of the most efficient alternatives to traditional litigation. It provides the
parties involved in a dispute with a method that is more advantageous in terms
of speed, less combative, confidentiality, and flexibility. Arbitration
prioritises the independence of the parties and their ability to reach a
mutually agreeable resolution, in contrast to litigation, which can drag out
disputes through various levels of appeals and procedural formalities. The idea
that disagreements are unavoidable but should be resolved peacefully through
arbitration was eloquently expressed by Mahatma Gandhi. The so-called winner
and loser often end up worse off owing to expenses, delays, and emotional toll,
which is why Abraham Lincoln urged parties to "discourage litigation"
and to resolve conflicts through compromise whenever possible. These principles
embody the core principles of arbitration: speed, equity, and resolution absent
from protracted legal disputes.
India is familiar with the idea of arbitration. Its
roots are in the practice of community dispute resolution rather than official
court proceedings, which became commonplace in ancient times. Both the
Mahabharata and the Manusmriti mention elder councils that met to settle
disputes, but the Manusmriti also mentions quasi-judicial forums like family
tribunals, guilds, and assemblies that administered justice according to
dharma, consensus, and equity. The cultural origins of arbitration in Indian
civilisation are reflected in these traditional institutions, which prioritised
restorative justice over adversarial disagreement.
As India became a colony, it was subject to codified
arbitration statutes derived from English law. The first of these was the
Indian Arbitration Act of 1899, which applied only to the Presidency towns.
Subsequently, the arbitration provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908
established arbitration as a formal procedure. The first nationwide framework,
however, was provided by the Arbitration Act of 1940. However, some felt that
the Act allowed too much court involvement, which would defeat the point of
arbitration as a mechanism for neutral, expedited dispute settlement. As a
result, the goal of arbitration under the 1940 statute was paradoxically
undermined because it frequently turned into drawn-out litigation.
Given these limitations and the era of economic
liberalisation in India during the 1990s, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 was passed by the legislature. An important milestone in the evolution of
India's arbitration laws was this statute. The 1996 Act aimed to bring India's
arbitration law in line with international standards, drawing inspiration from
the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) and the
UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules (1980). It reflected India's responsibilities under
the Geneva and New York Conventions (1927) and included important provisions
for the recognition and execution of domestic and international arbitral
rulings. At least in principle, India is now a far more appealing location for
international arbitration thanks to this law change.
Since the advent of globalisation, the role of
arbitration has been increasingly significant. Disputes arising from
international trade, investments, and partnerships necessitate amicable,
neutral, and legally binding resolutions. One way to measure a country's
credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and its dedication to the
rule of law is by looking at how easily arbitral rulings may be enforced. To
achieve its goal of becoming a world leader in international commercial arbitration,
India must be able to effectively enforce arbitral rulings. This would help
alleviate pressure on the country's already overworked court and inspire faith
in India's legal system among investors.
It has not been easy for India to become an arbitration-friendly
jurisdiction, even though it has a modern legislative framework. Over time, the
1996 Act's pro-arbitration intentions have been eroded due to problems like
inconsistent court interpretations, excessive use of the "public
policy" exception, procedural delays, and a lack of institutional support.
The formation of institutions like the New Delhi International Arbitration
Centre, as well as landmark judgements, changes in 2015, 2019, and 2021, and
other developments, indicate considerable advancement. Striking a balance
between court scrutiny, party autonomy, and the finality of arbitral rulings is
nevertheless an ongoing struggle.
This review paper aims to evaluate the enforcement of
foreign arbitral rulings in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. It does so within this context. Examining the changing role of Indian
courts in defining arbitration law, as well as its historical evolution,
legislative framework, judicial trends, and enforcement issues, the article
delves into the topic. The study highlights the importance of strong
institutional processes, constant judicial backing, and statutory provisions
for the success of arbitration in India. In the end, the question of how to
implement arbitral rulings goes beyond mere procedure. It is fundamental to
India's goal of being seen as a trustworthy and appealing location for
international trade and investment.
HISTORICAL AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Ancient and Traditional Practices
Arbitration has always been an integral part of Indian
culture and history. Local community courts like Kulas (family or clan
assemblies), Shrenis (guilds), and Pugas (associations of persons inhabiting in
a certain locality) were employed to settle disputes long before codified legal
systems were put in place. Reconciliation, equity, and justice based on dharma
(righteousness and moral order) were the tenets of these informal arbitral
forums, which replaced strict, written law. Instead of promoting combative
litigation, the goal was to maintain social cohesion and communal
accountability within the community. Because of its cultural acceptability and
moral legitimacy, this indigenous type of arbitration was well-respected,
accessible, and inexpensive.
Colonial Influence
The introduction of Western ideas of conflict
resolution by the British drastically changed India's legal environment. The
first legislation foundation for arbitration in India was the 1899 Arbitration
Act, which was shaped by English law. Nevertheless, its geographical scope was
severely limited as it was only applicable to the presidential towns of
Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The Civil Procedure Code of 1908 gave arbitration
a permanent home, broadened its scope, and mandated heavy judicial supervision
of arbitral procedures while maintaining its court-centric orientation.
Although these laws established formal arbitration procedures, they were not as
autonomous or flexible as India's conventional means of resolving disputes,
which made the process difficult or impossible for average residents to use.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
In an effort to streamline and standardise arbitration
law in India, the country passed the Arbitration Act of 1940 after gaining
independence. Despite its merit as a progressive piece of legislation, the Act
quickly came under fire for relying too much on judicial intervention
throughout the entire arbitration process, from selecting arbitrators to
collecting compensation. Courts' meddling in arbitration procedures undermined
the efficiency and effectiveness of the process, which was supposed to be a
faster alternative to litigation. In a move that demonstrated how ineffective
it was as a tool for conflict settlement, the Indian Supreme Court used the
term "lawyers' paradise" to describe the 1940 Act and the litigation
it generated.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was passed
by the Indian legislature in reaction to the increasing demands of
globalisation and cross-border commerce, as well as to the deficiencies of the
1940 Act. A turning point in Indian arbitration law was reached with the
passage of this statute, which was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration (1985). By updating India's framework for
resolving disputes, it brought in extensive provisions for conciliation,
arbitration (both domestic and foreign), and both.
International conventions to which India is a party were given statutory force
by the Act, which included procedures for the acknowledgement and execution of
arbitral rulings. It was a clear indication of India's determination to conform
to international norms for the implementation of arbitral awards that it
incorporated the New York Convention (1958) and the Geneva Convention (1927).
India is now seen as a jurisdiction that is open to both domestic and
international arbitration because to the 1996 Act, which reduced judicial
involvement, made arbitral rulings final, and fostered an environment that is
favourable to arbitration.
POST-1996 DEVELOPMENTS IN ARBITRATION LAW IN INDIA
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
The 2015 amendment was a historic move to reduce
judicial intervention and make India more arbitration-friendly. Its principal
goal was to boost confidence among both domestic and foreign participants by
making arbitration faster, more predictable, and in line with international
standards.
The addition of time-bound arbitration was a major
component of the 2015 amendment. As per the revised Act, an arbitral tribunal
had to make a decision within a year, with a six-month extension possible with
the parties' agreement. Prompt resolution of disputes and prevention of delays,
which had traditionally diminished the efficacy of arbitration in India, were
the goals of this provision.
Another goal of the amendment was to lessen the role
of the courts. Once the arbitral tribunal was established, the courts were
limited in their ability to grant interim measures, giving the tribunal more
power. Restricting procedural hindrance through litigation in courts and
strengthening the tribunal's authority were the goals of this amendment.
The 2015 modification highlighted the impartiality and
autonomy of arbitrators to bring it into line with international norms. It
required full disclosure of any facts that would cast doubt on the impartiality
of an arbitrator. This rule reflected the best practices internationally by
ensuring that arbitrators remained credible and impartial throughout the
proceedings.
The cost regime in arbitration was also addressed in the 2015 amendment. To
keep the arbitration process financially feasible, courts and tribunals were
given the authority to set fair charges, which discouraged baseless claims and
needless delays.
Lastly, the validity of interim reliefs was
strengthened by the modification. The arbitral tribunal now has more power to
handle both the formal and substantive parts of arbitration according to
Section 17, which makes its orders as binding as a court order. All things
considered, the 2015 modification greatly improved the efficacy, legitimacy,
and dependability of India's arbitration system.
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019
The reform of 2015 was forward-thinking, but there
were still issues with its implementation, most notably with the formalisation
of arbitration. The goal of the 2019 amendment was to promote a professional
and organised arbitration environment in India in an effort to resolve these
difficulties.
The Indian Arbitration Council (ACI) was founded,
which was a big milestone. In order to maintain high levels of professionalism
and guarantee that arbitration services are consistently of high quality, the
ACI is responsible for rating arbitral institutions and accrediting
arbitrators.
Confidentiality of processes was further highlighted in the 2019 amendment,
which stated that, with the exception of situations necessitating disclosure
for enforcement, arbitration hearings and awards should remain private.
Attracting foreign partners wary of the public disclosure of business disputes
was a primary goal of this policy.
To ensure the impartiality and safety of arbitrators,
the amendment shielded arbitrators who participated in arbitration procedures
in good faith from legal action. With this safeguard in place, arbitrators can
confidently issue merit-based rulings without worrying about potential legal
action. The change loosened the
stringent deadlines imposed in 2015 for international business arbitration in
recognition of the complexity of cross-border conflicts. While preserving a
structure for effective dispute resolution, this flexibility recognised that
international arbitrations may have longer process windows.
The 2019 revision showed that India wants to become a
centre for institutional arbitration instead of depending mostly on ad hoc
processes; it institutionalised arbitration, strengthened secrecy, and
protected arbitrators.
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021
The 2021 modification was motivated by two main goals:
(1) further strengthening institutional arbitration and (2) making sure the
arbitral procedure is honest and open.
An important part of the change was the provision that puts an immediate halt
to any awards that have been gained by corrupt or fraudulent means. The
arbitral award may be immediately stopped from being enforced if a prima facie
case of fraud or corruption was shown. This would protect against corrupted
awards and ensure that enforcement processes were fair.
The revision also changed the requirements for arbitrators, making it possible
to choose from a more varied and inclusive group of people, including experts
from other countries. In order to avoid over-limitation and provide freedom in
the appointment of competent arbitrators, this requirement was eventually
eliminated, although it had been attached to the Eighth Schedule of the Act.
By enhancing the function of the Arbitration Council
of India, the 2021 amendment further solidified institutional arbitration.
Aligning local arbitration methods with internationally recognised standards
and boosting professional credibility were the goals of this initiative, which
attempted to strengthen India's institutional framework.
Overall Impact of the 2015, 2019, and 2021 Amendments
Collectively, the 2015, 2019, and 2021 amendments
represent India’s progressive journey from a system dominated by ad hoc
arbitration and heavy judicial involvement toward a modern, institution-driven,
and internationally aligned regime. These reforms addressed long-standing
criticisms, including delays, excessive judicial intervention, and lack of
professional oversight. At the same time, they demonstrated India’s commitment
to making arbitration a preferred mode of dispute resolution, both for domestic
disputes and for cross-border commercial transactions. The combined impact of
these legislative measures has been to enhance efficiency, credibility, and
predictability in India’s arbitration landscape.
ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS IN INDIA
Statutory Framework
Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
lays out the main legislative framework for the recognition and execution of
foreign arbitral verdicts in India. Reflecting India's dedication to
international enforcement systems, this section is separated into two chapters:
Awards covered by the New York Convention are addressed in Sections 44–52
(1958). This Convention, widely recognised as the bedrock of international
commercial arbitration, has India as a signatory. The conditions for the
recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India are laid out in
these rules. Importantly, there are specific reasons why enforcement can be
denied. These include: parties' incapacity, the arbitration agreement being
unlawful, improper notification, an excess of jurisdiction, an irregularly
composed arbitral panel, or the fact that execution would go against India's
national policy.
Award procedures pertaining to the Geneva Convention
are governed under Sections 53–60 (1927). These clauses are still part of
Indian law to deal with previous agreements and awards that were subject to the
Geneva framework, even though the New York Convention has supplanted them
globally.
To reduce unnecessary procedural impediments, Indian
courts are required to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards in the
same way they would domestic court decrees. A number of legislative exclusions,
most notably the divisive "public policy" basis that has been heavily
interpreted by the courts, serve to balance this pro-enforcement attitude.
Judicial Trends
The Indian judicial system
has been essential in shaping the equilibrium between judicial supervision and
party sovereignty by interpreting the arbitration statute. A shift from an
overly interventionist to a more moderate, pro-arbitration position is visible
in the case law.
Observations
A shift away from judicial overreach and towards an
attitude that is pro-enforcement has been discernible in the historical
trajectory of Indian judicial interpretation. Previous judgements, notably Saw
Pipes, raised doubts about India's arbitration-friendliness; however, recent
decisions, including BALCO and Shri Lal Mahal, demonstrate an attempt by the
Indian judiciary to bring its practice in line with international norms. Still,
discrepancies persist because courts aren't quite sure how to resolve the
conflict between protecting federal interests (through public policy) and
making arbitration decisions as final and predictable as possible.
Vijay Karia & Ors. v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL
(2020)
The case of Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi
(2020) started because Ravin Cables Limited and Prysmian, an Italian company,
had a Joint Venture Agreement. Prysmian was the recipient of the award
following the arbitration that took place in London in accordance with LCIA
Rules. Claims that the party was "unable to present its case" and
that the award contradicted India's public policy, including alleged FEMA
violations, were raised in opposition to the enforcement in India under Section
48.
The Supreme Court made it clear that there are
rigorous and non-expandable reasons for refusing foreign awards, as stated in
Section 48. Public policy is not inherently violated by slight infractions of
procedures or technicalities, such as minor non-compliance with FEMA
regulations, unless such infractions strike at the heart of what is considered
to be fairness.
By stressing the need for limited judicial intervention, this ruling reaffirmed
India's pro-enforcement position. To bring India in line with the norms of the
New York Convention and to improve predictability for international
arbitration, the country can only refuse enforcement in extraordinary
situations.
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail
Ltd. & Ors. (2021)
Amazon sought implementation of an emergency
arbitration (EA) order prohibiting Future Retail from transferring assets to
Reliance Retail in Amazon v. Future Retail (2021), under a Shareholders'
Agreement with Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. Despite the absence of an explicit
mention of "emergency arbitrator" in the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that EA orders can be enforced under Section
17 of the same act, so long as the parties have established institutional
standards that provide for such relief. Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC challenges
against such orders cannot be maintained because court enforcement is valid.
In line with the arbitration agreement and institutional principles, the ruling
confirms that courts cannot carelessly dismiss implementation of such awards,
supports emergency arbitration in India, reinforces party autonomy, restricts
technical objections to interim relief, and more.
CHALLENGES IN ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS IN INDIA
The execution of arbitral
verdicts in India still encounters numerous obstacles, even after progressive
judicial interventions and substantial legislative reforms. The legitimacy of
arbitration as a means of resolving disputes is threatened by these procedural
and structural hurdles.
·
The Over-Involvement of
the Judiciary: This is a long-standing problem in
Indian arbitration. Although the goal of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 and its later revisions was to reduce judicial involvement, Indian courts
nevertheless hear cases involving Section 34 (the revocation of domestic
decisions) and Section 48 (the rejection of international awards' enforcement).
Courts often conduct extensive reviews of arbitral decisions, looking into
matters like contract interpretation, purported evidence anomalies, or
procedural errors. The goal of arbitration is to offer efficient and quick
resolution of disputes; nevertheless, court review frequently causes
substantial delays, defeating this purpose.
·
Conflicts with Other
Provisions: For a long time, the public policy
exemption in Sections 34(2)(b)(ii) and 48(2)(b) has been a serious obstacle.
Since the phrase "public policy of India" might mean different things
to different people, the courts in India have applied it inconsistently.
Although verdicts may have been well-grounded in procedure and substance,
landmark decisions like ONGC v. Saw Pipes (2003) showed that courts were
willing to intervene based on a sweeping interpretation of public policy. In
enforcement procedures, courts can still bring up public policy, even though
this power was curtailed by subsequent rulings such as Shri Lal Mahal v.
Progetto Grano (2013) and Vijay Karia v. Prysmian (2020). This lack of clarity
causes parties both at home and abroad to feel uncertain, as it frequently
leads to awards being challenged on weak grounds.
·
Procedural Delays:
The complexity of Indian procedures causes enforcement proceedings to drag on
for a lengthy time. Legal proceedings can drag on for a long time due to the
number of adjournments, applications for interim relief, and appeals that go
through lower courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court. Litigation sometimes delays
enforcement, despite the fact that modifications, especially those in 2015,
aimed to establish tight deadlines for arbitration hearings. Businesses are
discouraged from depending on India as an arbitration seat due to delays, which
degrade the reliability and efficiency of the process, particularly in
cross-border scenarios.
·
High Expenses:
Despite the fact that arbitration should be cheaper than litigation in theory,
in practice, this is not always the case in India. Costs associated with
institutional arbitration, especially under rules recognised worldwide as ICC,
LCIA, and SIAC, can be too high for many businesses, especially SMEs.
Arbitration becomes less affordable for smaller commercial players due to the
accumulation of costs, including those of solicitors, arbitrators,
institutions, and supplementary services. In addition to reducing the
fundamental benefit of arbitration as a cost-effective method, high costs
encourage parties to seek judicial remedies.
·
Inadequate Institutional
Framework: Conventional arbitration in India is
still in its early stages, despite changes like the 2019 amendment's
establishment of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI). The absence of regular
procedures, competent administration, and strong case management is a common
feature of the ad hoc mechanisms that are typically used to settle conflicts.
Inconsistencies, delays, and inefficiency are risks that parties face when they
depend on ad hoc arbitration. India is still far from being a world leader in
arbitration because of its inadequate institutional framework, which lacks
qualified arbitrators, strong procedural norms, and technical support.
·
New Areas of Potential
Concern: The 2021 revision to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act sought to reduce instances of corruption and fraud in
arbitration, but it has also introduced new areas of possible concern. Even
before a thorough investigation, courts might temporarily halt the enforcement
of awards that they suspect of being false or corrupt. There is a possibility
of abuse or baseless claims to postpone enforcement, even though the goal is to
safeguard parties from corrupt awards. In international commercial environments
where speed and enforceability are crucial, this could unintentionally weaken
the finality and certainty that arbitration attempts to deliver.
REFORM MEASURES AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
In an effort to bring its arbitration framework in
line with international best practices, India has made substantial legislative
revisions in the last decade. Award rendering must occur within twelve months,
with a six-month extension possible with the parties' agreement, as a result of
more stringent deadlines for arbitration processes set by the 2015 Amendment to
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, it aimed to restrict
judicial interference after an arbitration panel had been established by
granting the tribunal the authority to provide temporary reliefs, which might
be enforced as court orders, under Section 17. The reform also made arbitrators
more transparent and made it clear that they must maintain their impartiality,
which improved the general fairness and integrity of arbitration.
The 2019 Amendment sought to institutionalise
arbitration in India, expanding upon the 2015 revisions. The Arbitration
Council of India (ACI) was established to ensure professional standards by
grading arbitration institutions and accrediting arbitrators. The change
brought India in line with global standards on the secrecy of processes and
fortified arbitrator immunity to protect their autonomy. In addition, the
modification encouraged the use of institutional arbitration rather than ad hoc
procedures and provided more leeway in the scheduling of international business
arbitrations.
Courts can now temporarily halt execution of awards in
circumstances where there is reason to suspect fraud or corruption, according
to new safeguards put in place by the 2021 Amendment. Some worry that this
clause could be abused to postpone enforcement, despite its intended purpose of
protecting parties from corrupted awards. To further strengthen institutional
arbitration, the amendment defined the function of the Arbitration Council of
India, which is responsible for promoting internationally accepted procedures
and professional standards in arbitration proceedings in India. All things
considered, these changes show that India is serious about making the
arbitration process more efficient and streamlined with less judicial
intervention.
India has taken a step forward institutionally with
the opening of the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC), which
aims to offer first-rate facilities and expert management for arbitrations both
within and outside of India. Providing administrative support, procedural
direction, and infrastructure that is in line with worldwide best practices,
NDIAC enhances India's capacity to expeditiously manage complicated commercial
disputes. Furthermore, in an effort to overcome the drawbacks of ad hoc
arbitration and make the system more predictable and efficient, the 2019
Amendment proposes the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India. This
body would be responsible for accrediting arbitrators, grading institutions,
and standardising professional behaviour.
These changes have not prevented India from falling
behind other major international arbitration centres like London, Singapore,
and Hong Kong. In contrast to these jurisdictions, India's courts are notorious
for their inconsistent review, lengthy adjournments, and procedural delays when
it comes to enforcing arbitration agreements. Uncertainty surrounds the public
policy exemption, even though it has been restricted in recent judgements such
as Vijay Karia v. Prysmian (2020) and Amazon v. Future Retail (2021). The
extent of judicial intervention in India is wider, impacting predictability and
award finality, in contrast to the rarity of merits-based review on a global
scale.
Even though organisations like the NDIAC and the ACI
are helping to improve India's institutional framework, it still lags behind
what is required to compete on a global scale. The lack of protocol
standardisation, supervision, and efficiency is a result of the majority of
arbitrations still being conducted on an as-needed basis. In contrast to
jurisdictions whose price structures and institutional support make arbitration
more accessible and cost-effective, the costs of institutional arbitration are
still substantial, especially for small and medium firms.
Finally, via institutional and legislative reforms,
India has significantly improved its arbitration framework. Timeliness, less
court intrusion, and promotion of professionalised arbitration have all been
improved by these methods. Problems with predictability, speed, and the
resilience of institutions persist, nevertheless. India is not yet a very
appealing arbitration-friendly jurisdiction due to its excessive use of the
public policy exception and its inefficient procedures. Although India is
making progress, it still has to implement more reforms to catch up to
international standards and become a leading arbitration centre.
CONCLUSION
There has been significant improvement and persistent
difficulty in India's enforcement of international arbitral rulings. A
contemporary framework in line with international norms has been established by
amending the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in 2015, 2019, and 2021.
Indian courts have taken a more pro-enforcement posture in recent decisions,
which has reduced intervention and brought the country closer to international
arbitration standards. Still, problems like overly broad interpretations of
public legislation, lengthy delays in procedures, exorbitant expenses, and
insufficient institutional backing are undermining certainty and efficiency.
While reforms such as the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India and
the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre mark important strides towards
institutionalisation, their impact is still evolving. Although it has made
great strides, India is still not as reliable as other prominent arbitration
centres like London and Singapore. Judgemental uniformity, prompt enforcement,
affordability, and robust institutional processes are crucial for India to
achieve its goal of being an arbitration-friendly country.
References
1.
Aragaki, H. N. (2018).
Arbitration reform in India: challenges and opportunities. The
Developing World of Arbitration: A Comparative Study of Arbitration Reform in
the Asia Pacific. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 221-250.
2.
Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996) as Amended by Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 2021.
3.
Delhi International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC). (2023). About DIAC. Delhi High Court.
Retrieved from https://dhcdiac.nic.in/
4.
Dr. P.C. Markanda, Law
Relating to Arbitration and Conciliation 8th Ed. 2013, Published by Lexis
Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa.
5.
Ganguli, A. K. (2008).
Emerging Trend in the Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. Journal of the
Indian Law Institute, 50(1), 51-66.
6.
High-Level Committee on
Institutional Arbitration in India. (2017). Report under the Chairmanship of
Justice B.N. Srikrishna. Department of Legal Affairs. Retrieved from
https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Report-HLC.pdf
7.
Kaur, H. (2010). The 1996
arbitration and conciliation act: A step toward improving arbitration in
India. Hastings Bus. LJ, 6, 261.
8.
Kumar, S. (2024).
Arbitration: A Streamlined Alternative to Court Litigation. LawFoyer
Int'l J. Doctrinal Legal Rsch., 2, 655.
9.
Law and International
Commercial Arbitration, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994.
10.
Reed, Lucy F.,
“Experience of Practical Problems of Enforcement”, in Albert Jan Van Den Berg
(ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years
of Application of the New York Convention, The Hague: Kluwer Law International,
1999.
11.
Sharma, G. (2023).
Insight into the Indian Arbitration: A Comprehensive Overview. Jus
Corpus LJ, 4, 42.
12.
Sharma, R. (2022). Judicial
Intervention in Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Shifting
Perspectives. Issue 2 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4,
1.
13.
UNCITRAL Working Group II
(Arbitration and Conciliation), 3-7 October 2005, "Settlement of
commercial disputes: Preparation of a model legislative provision on written
form for the arbitration agreement", UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.136.
14.
United Nations Commission
on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL): Status of Conventions and Model Laws