TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Two-Tier Arbitration in Indian Law: Autonomy Upheld</h1> <h3>M/s. CENTROTRADE MINERALS & METAL INC. Versus HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. AND VICE-VERSA</h3> M/s. CENTROTRADE MINERALS & METAL INC. Versus HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. AND VICE-VERSA - 2017 AIR 185, 2016 (9) SCR 83, 2017 (2) SCC 228, 2016 (12) JT 315, ... Issues Involved:1. Permissibility of a two-tier arbitration procedure under Indian law.2. Enforceability of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Permissibility of a Two-Tier Arbitration Procedure under Indian LawAppreciating Clause 14 of the Contract:The arbitration clause (Clause 14) in the contract between the parties provides for a two-tier arbitration procedure. Initially, disputes are to be settled by arbitration in India through the Indian Council of Arbitration. If either party disagrees with the result, they can appeal to a second arbitration in London under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The result of this second arbitration is binding on both parties.Interpretation of 'Arbitration Result':The term 'arbitration result' in Clause 14 is interpreted to mean an arbitration award. This interpretation is necessary to avoid a legal vacuum where the arbitration result cannot be enforced. The term 'arbitration result' must be understood as an award that can be enforced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).Validity of the Two-Tier Arbitration System:The two-tier arbitration system, as provided in Clause 14, is not prohibited by the A&C Act. The Act does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit such a system. Historically, two-tier arbitration was permissible in India before the enactment of the A&C Act. The Act does not specifically prohibit this system, and several High Court decisions have upheld its validity.Party Autonomy:Party autonomy is a fundamental principle in arbitration, allowing parties to decide the procedural and substantive laws governing their arbitration. The parties in this case voluntarily agreed to a two-tier arbitration system, which is a valid exercise of their autonomy.Public Policy Considerations:The two-tier arbitration system does not violate the fundamental policy of Indian law or public policy. The parties have not bypassed any mandatory provisions of the A&C Act. They agreed to a second instance arbitration, which is not prohibited by the Act.Conclusion on Issue 1:The two-tier arbitration procedure provided in Clause 14 of the contract is permissible under Indian law. The arbitration clause does not violate the fundamental or public policy of India.Issue 2: Enforceability of a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the A&C ActPending Consideration:The second issue, regarding the enforceability of the foreign award under Section 48 of the A&C Act, will be addressed in subsequent proceedings. The current judgment focuses solely on the permissibility of the two-tier arbitration procedure.Conclusion:The arbitration clause in the contract, providing for a two-tier arbitration system, is permissible under Indian law. The appeals will be listed again for consideration of the enforceability of the foreign award under Section 48 of the A&C Act.
TaxTMI 