The Indian Supreme Court has directed the High Courts to decide within six months on applications to appoint arbitrators that have been pending for over a year. While the judgment will help reduce a large backlog, it highlights the importance of designating an arbitral institution to oversee the case and appoint the arbitrators to avoid the risk of delay in India-related commercial contracts.
M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions v The Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service & Ors., SLP (C) No. 5306/2022.
Background
Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 provide that the court may appoint an arbitrator where (i) the parties cannot agree on a sole arbitrator; or (ii) where there is a failure in an agreed appointment procedure. Both provisions are subject to any other agreement specifying how deadlocks will be resolved…
Read the complete story here.
This article first appeared on the Arbitration Matters blog, here. In Shahcheraghi v Divangahi, 2021 BCSC 1576, Justice Horsman set aside the award of an arbitrator of the Residential Tenancy Branch...
By Lisa C. MunroThis blog post was originally published on the Practical Law Arbitration Blog and is reproduced with the permission of Thomson Reuters. There are various means open to a party to an arbitration to seek...
By Paul TomsThis article first appeared in Urbas Arbitral, here. In Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. TSM Winny AG Ltd., 2020 SKQB 348, Mr. Justice Richard W. Elson held that the Convention on the...
By Daniel Urbas
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.
