WORKSHOP ON ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
The former Chief Justice
of India Shri Justice A.S. Anand has expressed his concern over
the confidentiality and the secrecy maintained over the reports
of the Law Commission of India. Inaugurating a day-long workshop,
organized by the Indian Law Institute, on the proposed amendment
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 here, Shri Justice
Anand said that once the reports of the Law Commission were submitted
to the Government, it must be opened to public debate even before
these were laid in the Parliament.
Talking of arbitration,
Shri Justice Anand did not subscribe to the scope of Section 20
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which permitted parties
to choose a venue outside India even when both the parties were
Indian nationals. He felt that in such cases, the venue should
be restricted to India. He suggested that Section 28 of the 1996
Act relating to rules applicable to substance of dispute required
a fresh look. According to him, the amended Act needed to be examined
in the light of Section 89, Orders X Rules A, 1B and 1C and Section
32 (2) (g) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.
The senior most
judge of the Supreme Court of India, Shri Justice G.B. Patnayak,
in his speech, suggested public discussion of reports of the Law
Commission and said that the reports of the Commission must not
be kept ‘secret’ This could have avoided the revision of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 within a span of six years after its
enactment. He suggested that a time frame must be provided for
submission of the awards rendered by the arbitrators.
The
Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Shri Justice M. Jagannadha
Rao and a former judge, Supreme Court of India, in his keynote
address, explained the various amendments suggested by his Commission
and the need for such measures.
The workshop considered
all aspects of arbitration. It felt that Section 10A (2) of the
proposed amendment, which permitted the Central or State Government,
public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, statutory corporations
and other public authorities to appoint their own employee, consultant
or advisor as an arbitrator was discriminatory as the same right
has been denied to the employee or consultant or advisor of private
companies and other business enterprises. It was also felt that
two additional grounds of challenge incorporated in Section 34
needed to be reviewed. Apart from this, concern was expressed
about the ad hoc appointments of arbitrator, casual manner in
which the arbitrators dealt with the arbitration and non-existence
of professionalism in arbitration. A need was felt to encourage
and strengthen institutional arbitration over ad hoc arbitration,
appointment of professional arbitrators, regulated fees structure
and a time frame to render the award. Conflicting views were also
expressed in regard to Section 11 which empowered the Chief Justice
of the High Court to appoint a panel of arbitrators.
Among the legal
and constitutional experts who took part in the workshop were
S/Shri B. Sen, P.P. Rao, Justice V.A. Mohta, S.K. Dholakia, A.K.
Ganguli, K.N. Bhat, M.C. Bhandare, G. L Sanghi, Dipankar P. Gupta,
T.K. Andhyarujina and Justice A.K. Srivastav.
