SETTING ASIDE AND OR MODIFICATION OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD BE PERMITTED?
The above issue is sub-judice in the matter of GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021 While writing this blog there is no intention to impress upon views but this is just a small educational analysis. I am not in possession of the reference papers but expressing my views on Section. 33 of the Act. This I am writing solely on basis on press reports available. Let us first see the concerned provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996. Once the Award is made affecting party has remedy under Section 34 of the said 1996 for setting aside the Award. It reads as under: CHAPTER VII Recourse against arbitral award (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if– (a) the party making the application 1[establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]– (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that– (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. 1[Explanation 1.–For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,– (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2.–For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of […]
Read moreDispute between Australia – New Zealand and Japan over Sothern Bluefin Tuna Case Study
Cause of Action: Australia approached the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘the Tribunal’) ( ITLOS) to prescribe the provisional measures specified in Australia’s dispute with Japan over Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘SBT’),pending the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII of UNCLOS (‘the Arbitral Tribunal’). The dispute relates to Japan’s failure to conserve, and to cooperate in the conservation of, the SBT stock, as manifested, inter alia, by its unilateral experimental fishing for SBT in 1998 and 1999. It also included the interpretation and application of certain provisions of UNCLOS. The Arbitral Tribunal were asked to take into account, for the said reasons, the provisions of the 1993 Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘the 1993 Convention’) and the parties’ practice in relation to that Convention, as well as their obligations under general international law, in particular the precautionary principle. Reasons: Japan’s unilateral experimental fishing for SBT and its lack of cooperation in the conservation and management of SBT which will have the potential to cause serious prejudice to the rights of Australia; Natural environmental changes could combine at any time with the vulnerable state of the resource to cause a further and potentially highly damaging decline to the stock; The reason for requesting provisional measures is that Japan’s current and proposed unilateral actions in relation to SBT, taken in the context of a stock at historically low levels, increase the threat to that stock and undermine the disciplines of the accepted scheme for SBT management; If not addressed by way of provisional measures, the unilateral actions of Japan have the potential to cause serious prejudice to the rights of Australia; This prejudice could not be the subject of adequate remedy in any subsequent decision of the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal; Pending the constitution of this Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII of UNCLOS, Australia and New Zealand, on July 30, 1999, each filed a request for the prescription of provisional measures with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”). Background to the Current Proceedings Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyi, hereafter sometimes designated “ SBT “) is a migratory species of pelagic fish that is included in the list of highly migratory species set out in Annex I of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. SBT range widely through the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere, principally the high seas, but they also traverse the exclusive economic zones and territorial waters of some States, notably Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They spawn in the waters south of Indonesia. The main market for the sale of SBT is in Japan, where the fish is prized as a delicacy for sashimi. Grounds argued and or pleaded: It is common ground between the Parties that commercial harvest of SBT began in the early 1950s and that, in 1961, the global catch peaked at 81,000 metric tons (“mt”). By the early 1980s, the SBT stock had been severely overfished; it was estimated that the parental stock had declined to 23-30% of its 1960 level. In 1982, Australia, New Zealand and Japan began informally […]
Read more