(Also read Decisions under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Not Binding Precedent and Contempt of Order of Arbitration Tribunal)
“Arbitration
improves access to justice. It enhances the likelihood of recovery. It delivers
speedier results. It keeps costs down. For many, it is a superior option to the
expensive, slow, cumbersome ways that have come to typify our civil justice
system.”[1]
- Peter
B. Rutledge
PART – I:
INTRODUCTION
Indian
Courts have in several decisions held that matters, in which grave allegations
of fraud, conspiracy or misappropriation are made, are too serious to be tried
by arbitrators. Therefore, in India, and several other countries, such matters
cannot be the subject-matter of arbitration. This view has also been upheld by
the Supreme Court of India in N. Radhakrishnan vs Maestro Engineers[2] (“N Radhkrishnan”). The
Courts have given various reasons for holding that arbitrators are incompetent
to hear such matters. Reputation of the party, ineffectiveness of arbitration
where substantial amount of documentary evidence needs to be produced and lack
of legal knowledge of the arbitrator, are some of the most cited reasons for
limiting the scope of arbitration by such a huge extent. It is also necessary
to consider the impact of such a limitation on Indian arbitration law, from an
international commercial arbitration perspective.
