Arbitration Law In Arbitration Law

722 Words3 Pages
The Supreme Court and High Courts have played a great role in the development of Arbitration Law not only in India but also world over. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, l996 is the product of the laws laid down in different cases as well as UNCITRAL Model Law and arbitration law world over. The Supreme Court observed in Narain Khamman v. Pradhuman Kumar , that it is now well settled that though the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a legislative bill cannot be used to determine the true measuring and effect of the substantive provisions of statute. It is permissible to refer to the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a bill, for the purpose of understanding the back ground, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding…show more content…
v Jindle Exports Ltd , the Supreme Court observed that the object of the Act is to provide speedy and alternative solutions to the dispute and avoid protraction of litigation. The provisions of the Act to be interpreted accordingly. In Ashok Tradrs v Gurumukh Das Saluja , the Supreme Court has observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, l996 is a long leave in the direction of an alternative dispute resolution system. It is based on the UNCITRAL model. The cases decided under the proceeding Act have to be applied with caution for determining the issues arising for decision under the new Act. The Act of l996 is very much different for the preceding Act of l940. The provision of the new Act are to be construed uninfluenced by the principles underlying the l940 Act. In order to get help in construing these provisions, it is more relevant to refer to UNCITRAL Model Law rather than the l940 Act. Applications to the courts for appointment for an arbitrator is not contemplated by the new Act. The term “Arbitration”, was defined by Ronrilly MR in Colliens v Colliens , “An Arbitration is a referece to the decision of one or more persons, either with or without an umpire , of a particular matter in difference between…show more content…
Mr. Ronrilly holds that this was not an “Arbitration”. The position of a valuer is different from that of an arbitrator in this respect that a valuer would be liable if a party suffers loss on account of his negligent judgment, but an Arbitrator enjoys the status and immunity of a Judge. In many cases experts like engineers, accountants and architects are appointed arbitrators. In such cases the experts have to act in a judicial manner and the fact that he has also to make some valuations or assessment in the process will not reduce his status as an arbitrator. He will enjoy immunity unless he acted fraudulently. “Arbitration requires a dispute, an agreement to refer future disputes to arbitration is only an agreement, and not a arbitration. Even where a dispute has arisen and the parties agree to have it decided by a third person, that may not be an arbitration unless that person is to act judicially”. Where there is no dispute there cannot be an arbitration or reference. Where a sint was based upon a contract containing an arbitration Act it was held that before making a reference, the court has to determine whether prima facie a dispute existed between the parties or whether the dispute was of a frivolous
Open Document