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 Urbas Arbitral, here. In Abittan v. Wilcox, 2020 ONSC 6836, Mr. Justice Frederick L. Myers reiterated the “consequences” of agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration, limiting...
By Daniel UrbasI'm very excited to share the news that we've just posted a new course on Arbitrate University from the legendary arbitrators (and arbitration professors) Karl Bayer and Tracy McCormack. There...
By Colin RuleAt her confirmation hearing Justice Kagan noted “So in that sense, we are all originalists.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, p.62, 6/29/2020) Her observation was prescient as adherence to the...
By Terry Moritz
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.
