A Comprehensive Guide to India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Procedure, Key Sections, and Landmark Judgments

In the sphere of Indian law, few pieces of legislation have had as profound an impact on commercial dispute resolution as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Replacing the archaic and often-criticized Arbitration Act of 1940, the 1996 Act represented a paradigm shift. It was not merely an update but a complete overhaul, designed to bring India’s arbitral framework in line with global best practices, primarily by adopting the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

The preceding 1940 Act was notorious for permitting excessive judicial intervention, which frequently led to protracted litigation, defeating the very purpose of arbitration—speedy and efficient dispute resolution. The 1996 Act was enacted to remedy this, built upon the foundational pillars of party autonomy, minimal judicial interference, and the finality of arbitral awards. This comprehensive article delves into the intricate architecture of the Act, exploring its key sections, the transformative impact of its amendments in 2015, 2019, and 2021, and the landmark judicial pronouncements that have shaped its evolution into a robust legal framework.

The Foundational Pillars: Salient Features of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Act was meticulously crafted to establish a fair, efficient, and modern legal framework for resolving disputes outside the traditional court system. Its core features are:

• Party Autonomy: This is the bedrock of the 1996 Act. It empowers the parties involved in a dispute with significant freedom to shape their own resolution process. As enshrined in provisions like Section 11(2), parties can agree on the procedure for appointing their arbitrator(s). Section 28 allows them, in international commercial arbitrations, to designate the rules of law applicable to the substance of their dispute. This autonomy allows for a flexible, bespoke process tailored to the specific needs of the dispute.
• Limited Judicial Intervention: To prevent the delays that plagued the old law, the Act severely curtails the role of courts. Section 5 of the Act contains a powerful non-obstante clause, stating unequivocally that “no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.” The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Sbp & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Another (2005) 8 SCC 618, observed that this provision makes the legislative intent clear and unambiguous, aiming to curb the tendency to use court proceedings as a dilatory tactic.
• A Unified and Comprehensive Framework: The Act consolidates the law on arbitration into a single statute. Part I deals with domestic and India-seated international commercial arbitrations, while Part II addresses the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York and Geneva Conventions.
• Enforceability of Awards: Under the Act, a domestic arbitral award is treated as a decree of the court. Once the time for challenging the award has expired, or a challenge has been dismissed, the award can be executed directly through the civil courts, giving it finality and legal force.
• Framework for Amicable Settlement (Conciliation): Part III of the Act originally provided a detailed statutory framework for conciliation (Sections 61-81), encouraging parties to settle their disputes amicably with the help of a neutral conciliator. While these provisions have now been largely superseded by the Mediation Act, 2023, their initial inclusion underscored the Act’s commitment to promoting all forms of alternative dispute resolution.
• Emphasis on Speedy Dispute Resolution: Several provisions, particularly those introduced by later amendments, are designed to ensure arbitrations are conducted expeditiously. Section 29A now prescribes a time limit for the completion of arbitral proceedings and the making of an award. Similarly, Section 34(6) requires courts to endeavor to dispose of applications for setting aside an award within one year.

A Deep Dive into the Key Sections of the Act

The true essence of the Act’s functionality lies in its operative sections. Understanding their text, judicial interpretation, and evolution through amendments is critical.

Section 8: The Gateway to Arbitration

The Provision: Section 8 empowers a judicial authority to direct parties to arbitration when they are embroiled in a lawsuit concerning a matter covered by an arbitration agreement. A party must make this application no later than the date of submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute.

Judicial Interpretation and Amendments: The scope of the court’s inquiry under Section 8 has been a subject of intense debate. The 2015 Amendment sought to clarify this by confining the judicial authority’s role to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Limited (2011) 5 SCC 532 had earlier outlined the key considerations for a court under Section 8. However, the definitive stance came in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. (2021) 2 SCC 1. In this seminal judgment, the Supreme Court established the “when in doubt, do refer” doctrine. It held that a court should refer a matter to arbitration unless it is manifestly and ex-facie clear that a valid arbitration agreement does not exist. Any complex questions regarding the validity of the agreement are best left to the arbitral tribunal to decide under Section 16.

Section 9: The Court’s Power to Grant Interim Relief

The Provision: Section 9 allows a party to seek interim measures of protection from a court before, during, or after the arbitral proceedings but before the award is enforced. These reliefs can range from securing the amount in dispute to interim injunctions or the appointment of a receiver.

Judicial Interpretation and Amendments: The Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Nepc India Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 479 clarified that courts could grant interim orders even before the arbitration had formally commenced, provided there was a clear intention to arbitrate.

A game-changing provision, Section 9(3), was introduced by the 2015 Amendment. It acts as a gatekeeper, mandating that once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the court shall not entertain a Section 9 application unless it finds that the remedy available under Section 17 (the tribunal’s power to grant interim relief) is inefficacious. This amendment was a deliberate move to shift the center of gravity for interim reliefs from the court to the arbitral tribunal, reinforcing the principle of minimal judicial intervention.

Section 11: The Mechanism for Appointing Arbitrators

The Provision: Section 11 outlines the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators. It upholds party autonomy, allowing parties to agree on their own mechanism. If this mechanism fails, or if the parties cannot agree, a party can request the Supreme Court (for international commercial arbitrations) or the High Court (for domestic arbitrations) to make the appointment.

Judicial Interpretation and Amendments: The role of the court under Section 11 has been significantly streamlined. The 2015 Amendment inserted Section 11(6A), which explicitly states that the court’s inquiry must be confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement. This was intended to overrule previous judgments where courts delved into preliminary issues, thereby speeding up the appointment process. All other issues are now left for the tribunal to decide under Section 16.

In Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. And Another (2004) 2 SCC 559, the Supreme Court held that a party does not lose its right to seek a court appointment under Section 11(6) just because the other party makes a belated appointment after the request has been made but before the court is formally approached.

Section 16: The Tribunal’s Right to Rule on its Own Jurisdiction (Kompetenz-Kompetenz)

The Provision: Section 16 is a cornerstone of modern arbitration law. It embodies the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, granting the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. It also enshrines the principle of severability, which treats an arbitration clause as an independent agreement that can survive even if the main contract is declared null and void.

Judicial Interpretation and Application: A party challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction must raise the plea at the earliest opportunity (no later than the submission of the statement of defence). The tribunal can decide this plea as a preliminary issue or in its final award. If the plea is rejected upfront, the arbitration continues, and the aggrieved party can only challenge this finding after the final award is made, under Section 34.

The Supreme Court in Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited v. Bhadra Products (2018) 2 SCC 534 clarified that “jurisdiction” under Section 16 covers the existence of a valid agreement, the proper constitution of the tribunal, and whether the disputes fall within the scope of the agreement. The Vidya Drolia judgment further cemented the position that the arbitral tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine such issues, with the court having a “second look” at the post-award stage.

Section 17: The Tribunal’s Power to Order Interim Measures

The Provision: Section 17 grants the arbitral tribunal powers that are a mirror image of the court’s powers under Section 9. It can order a party to take any interim measure of protection as it may consider necessary.

Judicial Interpretation and Amendments: Prior to 2015, a major weakness of the Act was that Section 17 orders were not directly enforceable. Parties had to approach the court to get them enforced, often a cumbersome process. The 2015 Amendment revolutionized this by adding Section 17(2). This provision deems an order passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 to be an order of the Court for all purposes and makes it directly enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

In Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2021) 11 SCC 347, the Supreme Court highlighted the parity of powers between Section 9 and Section 17 post-amendment, emphasizing that the purpose of Section 9(3) was to decongest courts and recognize that the remedy under Section 17 is now equally efficacious. While the tribunal’s order is enforceable like a court order, the tribunal itself does not have execution powers; the party must still approach the court for enforcement, as affirmed in M/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. v. MORBITS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (2023) 1 SCC 774.

Section 21: The Starting Line - Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings

The Provision: Section 21 specifies a crucial date: unless the parties agree otherwise, arbitral proceedings are deemed to commence on the date the respondent receives a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration.

Significance and Judicial Interpretation: This date is not merely a procedural formality. It is critical for determining which law applies (the 1940 Act or the 1996 Act) and for calculating the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court in Milkfood Ltd. v. Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 136 held that the service of a clear and unequivocal notice invoking arbitration is what constitutes the “request” under Section 21, thereby triggering the commencement of proceedings.

Section 34: The Limited Path to Challenge an Award

The Provision: Section 34 provides the exclusive and limited grounds upon which an arbitral award can be set aside. It is not an appellate provision; the court cannot re-examine the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the arbitrator on the merits of the dispute.

Grounds and Judicial Interpretation: The grounds are narrowly defined and include procedural defects (e.g., lack of proper notice, award deals with a dispute beyond the scope of arbitration) or substantive issues like the non-arbitrability of the dispute or conflict with the “public policy of India.”

The interpretation of “public policy” has been a saga in itself.

• Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705: Broadened the scope of public policy to include “patent illegality,” allowing courts to set aside awards that were contrary to law.
• Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49: Further elaborated on this, but importantly, it set the stage for legislative change.
• The 2015 Amendment: Reacting to the wide interpretation, the amendment significantly narrowed the definition of “public policy.” Explanation 1 clarified it means only fraud/corruption, contravention of the “fundamental policy of Indian law,” or conflict with basic notions of morality/justice. Crucially, Explanation 2 stated that a review on the merits of the dispute is impermissible.
• The amendment also introduced Section 34(2A), a separate ground of “patent illegality” applicable only to domestic awards. This allows setting aside an award for an obvious illegality appearing on the face of the award, but not for an erroneous application of law or by re-appreciating evidence.
• Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131: This pivotal post-amendment judgment confirmed that the legislative intent was to restrict the Saw Pipes interpretation. The court held that a mere error of law is not a ground for challenge, and “patent illegality” must be an error that goes to the root of the matter.

Section 36: The End Game - Enforcement of Awards

The Provision: Section 36 governs the enforcement of domestic awards, treating them as decrees of the court.

The Automatic Stay Saga and Amendments: Under the unamended Act, merely filing a Section 34 application automatically stayed the enforcement of the award. This was heavily misused to delay payments. The 2015 Amendment brought a revolutionary change by deleting this provision.

Now, Section 36(2) clarifies that filing a Section 34 application does not by itself render the award unenforceable. A party must file a separate application for a stay, which the court may grant subject to such conditions as it deems fit (Section 36(3)). While considering a stay of a money award, the court must have “due regard” to the provisions of the CPC for the stay of a money decree. In Pam Developments Private Limited v. State Of West Bengal (2019) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that government entities are not exempt from the requirement of furnishing security for obtaining a stay.

The 2021 Amendment added a crucial proviso to Section 36(3). It mandates that if the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that the arbitration agreement or the award itself was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, it shall grant an unconditional stay of the award pending the disposal of the Section 34 challenge. This change was applied retrospectively.

Section 37: The Narrow Gate for Appeals

The Provision: Section 37 lists the specific orders that are appealable, followed by the restrictive words “and from no others.” This reinforces the legislative intent to minimize layers of litigation.

Appealable Orders: An appeal lies from a court order refusing to refer parties to arbitration (Section 8), granting or refusing interim measures (Section 9), or setting aside or refusing to set aside an award (Section 34). An appeal also lies from a tribunal’s order accepting a jurisdictional plea (Section 16) or granting/refusing interim measures (Section 17).

Limitations and Judicial Interpretation: No second appeal lies from an order passed under Section 37, although the right to approach the Supreme Court is preserved. The Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation (2018) 14 SCC 715 strongly reiterated that the list in Section 37 is exhaustive. In Chintels (India) Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. (2021) 4 SCC 602, it was clarified that an order refusing to condone a delay in filing a Section 34 application is appealable, as it is tantamount to an order refusing to set aside the award.

From Conciliation to Mediation: The Impact of the Mediation Act, 2023

The legal landscape for amicable settlements has recently been transformed by the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023. This specialized legislation aims to promote and institutionalize mediation. Section 61 of the Mediation Act, 2023, effectively renders Part III (Sections 61-81) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 redundant. It states that any reference to “conciliation” in any other enactment shall be construed as a reference to “mediation” under the new Act. This marks a significant legislative shift, moving the statutory framework for mediated settlements from the 1996 Act to the more comprehensive 2023 Act.

Conclusion: India’s Maturing Arbitration Regime

The journey of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, from its inception to its present form, is a testament to India’s commitment to creating a world-class dispute resolution ecosystem. Through proactive legislative amendments and insightful judicial interpretation, the Act has been continuously refined to uphold its core principles. The law has evolved from a promising framework to a robust, pro-arbitration regime that balances party autonomy with necessary safeguards. By empowering arbitral tribunals, streamlining enforcement, and strictly limiting judicial interference, the Act has significantly boosted the confidence of domestic and international businesses in choosing India as a seat for arbitration, solidifying its growing stature as a vital hub for global commerce and dispute resolution.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. What is the main purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The main purpose is to provide a unified legal framework for resolving commercial disputes through arbitration and conciliation. It aims to offer a speedy, cost-effective, and party-driven alternative to traditional court litigation, with minimal judicial intervention.

Q2. What is the difference between “public policy” and “patent illegality” as grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34? “Public policy” (Section 34(2)(b)) is a narrow ground, post-2015 amendment, limited to cases of fraud, corruption, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic notions of morality. “Patent illegality” (Section 34(2A)) is a distinct ground applicable only to domestic awards. It refers to an illegality that is obvious on the face of the award, but it cannot be used to challenge a mere error of law or to re-appreciate evidence.

Q3. Can I approach the court for interim relief under Section 9 even after the arbitral tribunal has been formed? Generally, no. Section 9(3), introduced in 2015, directs that once the tribunal is constituted, the court shall not entertain an application for interim relief. The parties are expected to approach the tribunal under Section 17. The court can only intervene if it finds that the remedy under Section 17 would be inefficacious in the given circumstances.

Q4. What was the practical effect of the 2015 amendment on the enforcement of arbitral awards? The 2015 amendment was transformative. It abolished the rule of an “automatic stay” on the enforcement of an award when a challenge was filed under Section 34. Now, the award holder can immediately seek enforcement. The award debtor must file a separate application and persuade the court to grant a stay, which is often conditional upon depositing the awarded amount.

Q5. What does the “when in doubt, do refer” principle from the Vidya Drolia case mean? This principle, established by the Supreme Court, guides courts when dealing with applications under Section 8 or 11. It means that if there is any doubt or debatable issue regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court should refer the matter to the arbitral tribunal and not conduct a detailed inquiry itself. The court should only refuse a reference if the non-existence of a valid agreement is manifest and self-evident.

Q6. Is an arbitration clause in a contract valid if the main contract is found to be unstamped or insufficiently stamped? This has been a contentious issue. In a recent constitutional bench decision in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court held that an unstamped arbitration agreement is not a valid and enforceable agreement. This means courts can refuse to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 if the agreement is unstamped.

Q7. What are the time limits for completing an arbitration? Section 29A, introduced by the 2015 amendment, mandates that the arbitral award in domestic arbitrations shall be made within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings. This period can be extended by six months with the consent of the parties, and further extensions require a court order.

Q8. What is the significance of the 2021 Amendment regarding fraud or corruption? The 2021 amendment added a proviso to Section 36(3). It mandates that if a court is prima facie satisfied that the arbitration agreement or the award was induced by fraud or corruption, it must grant an unconditional stay on the award’s enforcement while the challenge under Section 34 is being decided.

Q9. Can I appeal any order passed by the court or the arbitral tribunal? No. The right to appeal is severely restricted. Section 37 provides a closed and exhaustive list of appealable orders. Any order not mentioned in Section 37 cannot be appealed, reinforcing the principle of finality.

Q10. What does “Kompetenz-Kompetenz” mean in practice? In practice, “Kompetenz-Kompetenz” (Section 16) means that the arbitral tribunal is the first authority to decide challenges to its own authority. For example, if a party claims the arbitration clause is invalid or that the dispute is not covered by the clause, they must raise this objection before the tribunal itself, not the court. The tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction can then be challenged only after the final award is rendered.

Q11. How are foreign awards enforced in India? Foreign awards are enforced under Part II of the Act. India is a signatory to the New York Convention, and awards made in a country that is a notified reciprocating territory can be enforced in India. The process involves filing an application in an Indian High Court, which will enforce the award as if it were a decree of that court, provided it does not fall under the limited grounds for refusal specified in Section 48.

Q12. What is the difference between the “seat” and “venue” of arbitration? The “seat” of arbitration is the legal situs of the arbitration. The law of the seat governs the arbitral proceedings. The “venue” is merely the geographical location where hearings take place for convenience. The seat determines which country’s courts have supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration.