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.
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 week, UNCITRAL Working Group III will consider the Draft Arbitrator Code of Conduct. They will be looking at proposed Article 3(2)(a), pursuant to which the obligation to remain independent and...By Katherine Simpson
This article was first published on the Littler® Insight Blog (Link here) and is reprinted here with permission. In Unifor Local 973 v Coca-Cola Canada Bottling Limited, 2022 CanLII 20322, Arbitrator...By Rhonda B. Levy, Barry Kuretzky
This article first appeared on Ogletree Deakins insights, here. Mandatory arbitration clauses for employment disputes have received a great deal of attention in recent years. In the First Circuit, there...By Rachel Mandel, Laurielle Howe