Shubhang Setlur and Zehaan Trivedi here write about a comparative analysis between the UNCITRAL Model Law and the Indian Judicial (Mis)interpretations of the pre-arbitration procedures of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996.
Abstract
The significance of arbitration in the modern world cannot be overemphasized. Arbitration proceedings are far more convenient than litigation, primarily in view of time and cost considerations. In this effect, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted in India on the lines of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The objectives behind enacting such legislation included increased party autonomy, speedy and effective dispute resolution, reduced judicial intervention and the like. The provisions of this legislation have been interpreted by the courts time and time again, thereby altering the position of law. The increased tampering with the legislation by the courts has been criticized for reasons of being in contravention of the objectives sought to be achieved. There have been major problems being witnessed like delays and increased costs, thus defeating the very purpose of arbitration. Hence, in order to improve the situation, it is important to evaluate the present laws on arbitration in India in light of the UNCITRAL Model Law and adopt the best arbitration practices being followed across jurisdictions.