As businesses expand into international markets, they may encounter legal challenges arising from differences in laws, regulations, business practices, language, and culture, leading to potential conflicts. To navigate these issues, companies may seek assistance from legal professionals with expertise in managing disputes across borders.
International commercial arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism employed for the resolution of conflicts between parties situated in different jurisdictions, facilitated by an arbitrator or a tribunal of arbitrators. This entails opting for arbitration as an alternative to pursuing litigation in a judicial forum, where the appointed arbitrator or tribunal renders a binding decision on the matter.
The scope of international commercial arbitration extends to diverse disputes, encompassing contractual, intellectual property, investment, and construction-related matters. It is particularly prevalent in scenarios where the disputing parties maintain a commercial relationship and seek to preserve their collaborative ties post-resolution.
The procedural framework governing international commercial arbitration emanates from a nexus of international conventions and domestic legislations, notably the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This model law furnishes a comprehensive structure for the administration of international commercial arbitration proceedings.
Under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, foreign awards fall within the ambit of the Act’s segment incorporating both New York Convention Awards and Geneva Convention Awards. As per the New York Convention, foreign arbitral awards are characterized as disputes between parties arising from legal relationships. The specific definition of a foreign award is outlined in Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Similarly, pursuant to the Geneva Convention, foreign awards, as elucidated in Section 53, pertain to disputes between parties arising from commercial matters.
It was determined that the “venue” of an arbitration refers to the chosen geographical location based on the parties’ convenience and is distinct from the “seat” of arbitration, which dictates the appropriate jurisdiction.
A landmark decision was rendered, delineating a clear demarcation between the grounds for objecting to the enforceability of a foreign award under Section 48 of the 1996 Act and the challenges for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The Supreme Court significantly narrowed down the scope of the term ‘public policy.’
The Constitution Bench affirmed that Part I and Part II of the statute operate independently, emphasizing the Parliament’s explicit adherence to the principle of territoriality concerning the subject matter of arbitration during the enactment of the statute. Specifically, the Constitution Bench held, among other things, that for international commercial arbitrations with a foreign seat, the legal seat of arbitration serves as the focal point, as opposed to the location where the contract was intended to be executed.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the stipulations of Part I of the 1996 Act are universally applicable to all arbitrations and related proceedings. In instances where such arbitration is conducted within India, the provisions of Part I are mandatory, allowing parties only limited deviation as permitted by the derogatory clauses of Part I. Concerning International Commercial Arbitrations conducted outside India, the provisions of Part I are applicable by default unless the parties, through express or implied agreement, exclude some or all of its provisions. In such instances, the laws or rules chosen by the parties take precedence, and any provisions in Part I contrary to or excluded by those laws or rules shall not be operative.
The Supreme Court determined that in the scenario where a company holds dual nationality, being registered both abroad and in India, it shall be construed as an Indian corporation for the purposes of this Act, rather than being classified as a foreign corporation.
The Supreme Court established that when an arbitral tribunal is constituted by the parties without requiring judicial intervention, the tribunal possesses the authority to adjudicate upon all jurisdictional matters through the exercise of its competence under Section 16 of the Act.
The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views / position of RKS Associate, but remains a probable view. For any further queries or follow up please contact RKS Associate at [email protected]