"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well."

-Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Guest Post: Response of Arbitral Institutions to the COVID-19 Crisis– An Indian Perspective: Part II

  [Pranay Jaiswal, a fourth year student at the ILS Law College, Pune, writes on how well the arbitral institutions in India have responded to the Covid19 crisis. This interesting post is in two parts. The first part can be accessed from here. This is the second part of the post] 

Response of Arbitral Institutions to the COVID-19 Crisis–  An Indian Perspective: Part 1I

By Pranay Jaiswal, IV BA.LLB, ILS Law College, Pune.

1.      Pre-Existing rules of the Arbitral Institutions supporting the prevailing circumstances.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) is running an initiative known as Pandemic Business Dispute Resolution Service[1] in collaboration with the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). This initiative aims at resolving business disputes, or disputes that may arise, as a consequence of the pandemic,whatever stage it is at, with cost-effective and expedite resolution of disputes.[2]

ICC has issued its 'Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic' dated 9 April 2020 ("ICC COVID-19 Guidance"),[3] intimating parties regarding the steps which the ICC is taking in this regard, and the considerations which are relevant to the conduct of arbitration in the prevailing circumstances.

Institutions like London Court of International Arbitration have also issued “Guidelines to Arbitrators[4] adhering to the principle of arbitration i.e. flexibility and party autonomy.[5] It grants freedom to the arbitrators to adopt the flexible procedure as they may deem fit in order to remedy the circumstance, the arbitral proceeding is in. The Guidance Note reflects upon the existing rules that inherently support the circumstances in the pandemic.

"14.4 Under the Arbitration Agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal's general duties at all times during the arbitration shall include:

...(ii) a duty to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the arbitration, avoiding unnecessary delay and expense, so as to provide a fair, efficient and expeditious means for the final resolution of the parties' dispute.

14.5 The Arbitral Tribunal shall have the widest discretion to discharge these general duties, subject to such mandatory law(s) or rules of law as the Arbitral Tribunal may decide to be applicable; and at all times the parties shall do everything necessary in good faith for the fair, efficient and expeditious conduct of the arbitration, including the Arbitral Tribunal's discharge of its general duties."[6]

Similarly, The International Chambers of Commerce (ICC) have given due consideration to the protection of party autonomy and flexibility in arbitration. On the other hand, in order to maintain the uniformity and the structure of the arbitral proceedings, the ICC has shown the adaptability of the inherent rules that support the current situations. For instance, Rule 22(2) of the ICC arbitration rules reads as follows;

"In order to ensure effective case management, the arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, may adopt such procedural measures as it considers appropriate, provided that they are not contrary to any agreement of the parties."

a.      Concerns Specific to India

India is trying to pave its way towards an International Arbitration hub through introducing the 2015 and the 2019 Amendments in order to improve Indian Arbitration and empower Arbitral Institutions. However, no significant steps or norms have been adopted by Indian Arbitral Institutions to deal specifically with the COVID-19 crises, in comparison to other foreign Arbitral Institutions. This becomes an impediment to India, especially when it is trying to promote Institutional Arbitration.

Nonetheless, there are some instances of steps being taken in the COVID-19 crisis. For instance, the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), has issued a notice[7] on the manner in which the arbitration proceeding is to be conducted through video conferencing and is accepting the new arbitration matters through e-mail. But, it is still disappointing that the Institution has made the parties submit hard copies of the document post the lockdown orders,[8] whereas, the other Arbitral Institutions have accepted electronic submission of documents as mentioned above.

Similarly, Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides that, the parties may decide upon the procedure or arbitral tribunal shall be free to determine the procedure with the consent of the parties. However, in the matter where the assistance of the Court is required in taking evidence or under Section 34 challenge gets hampered due to shutdown of the Court. Even so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through its order dated March 23, 2020 has provided for relaxation for such timelines laid down in the Act.[9]

2.      Significant reduction in the Costs of arbitral proceedings

The transition that is taking place in the nature of conducting arbitral proceedings from having a consensus on a neutral place, to participating in the proceedings sitting at their convenient venue, the costs of the proceedings have reduced in these terms. Parties no longer have to travel to the place of arbitration as all the proceedings are taking place in virtual forms. Similarly, expenses required for the infrastructure in support of the arbitral proceedings have considerably mitigated.

However, it is perplexing that the Arbitral Institutions make parties bear a huge amount of fee even if the parties are not using the infrastructure of Arbitral Institutions. No stand has been taken by Arbitral Institutions regarding the reduction of fees or adjustment of the fee already paid for proceedings postponed or cancelled due to the pandemic. Except for SIAC[10], which has explicitly mentioned that there would be no discount in the fees or any adjustment towards the same in future, no arbitral institution has come out clearly on the policy.

3.      Confidentiality during the Pandemic: A core principle of arbitration

Confidentiality and privacy are the core attributes of Arbitration. As arbitral proceedings are moving from physical to virtual hearings, ‘data confidentiality’ becomes a huge concern. Cyber threats such as breach of privacy and data, ransomware attacks and ransomware surround such technological steps. Preventive measures are required to be taken around this aspect.

Following are a list of precautions that can be applied:

·         Encryption of data/ files using password

·         Invitation link and restricted access

·         Secure Internet Connections

·         Secure storage of the recording of Hearings.[11]

Some Arbitral Institutions such as the American Arbitration Association, have come up certain guidelines regarding Ethical Principles.[12] Similarly, the International Chamber of Commerce has also taken up the measures by issuing the Cybersecurity Protocol for International Arbitration (2020)[13], which sets out the guidelines for the conduct of the proceeding and in order to maintain the confidentiality of arbitration.

In India, DIAC, in its guidance note, has prescribed that the arbitrator may take a binding undertaking related to confidentiality by the parties.[14] However, no procedure or remedy is mentioned in case of any breach of the data.

4.      Third-Party Host for the conduct of virtual hearings.

In order to ensure smooth conduct of virtual hearings, many Arbitral Institutions have collaborated with online dispute resolution platforms. For instance, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre has insisted parties to arrange for virtual hearing facilities with a service provider (Maxwell Chambers ADR Hearing Solutions, in this case) including services for real-time transcription. In the domestic arena, famous upcoming legal-Tech startups such as Centre for Online Resolution of the disputes (CODR) and Presolve360 are assisting the Arbitral Institutions for the conduct of virtual hearings.

5.      Conclusion

The manner in which disputes are resolved has undergone a sea-change because of the COVID-19 crises. However, the measures adopted by Arbitral Institutions are ambitious. Only time will prove the success rate of these norms.

There is a demand in the market for inexpensive and effective resolution of disputes, including those arising out of the COVID-19 crisis. Parties cannot afford to spend substantial time or money for dispute resolution. It is important that Arbitral Institutions answer to these demands by putting in place certain appropriate mechanisms. Unfortunately, Arbitral Institutions have hardly responded to this dire need of making dispute resolution more affordable.

Some Arbitral Institutions have not taken any effort to address the crisis and are still functioning with the existing rules/ procedures as though not much has changed. International arbitration’s success lies in adapting to the ever-changing times. Arbitral Institutions should do more for International arbitration to continue as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. 

[1] Pandemic Business Dispute Resolution Service, http://ciarb.org/disputes/pandemic-business-dispute-resolution/


[3] ICC Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the COVID-19Pandemic. https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-guidance-note-on-possible-measures-aimed-at-mitigating-the-effects-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/?dm=bypass


[5]COVID-19 and the global approach to further court proceedings, hearings, by Norton Rose Full bright, April 2020, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-in/knowledge/publications/bbfeb594/covid-19-and-the-global-approach-to-further-court-proceedings-hearings

[6]The "New Normal" For International Institutional Arbitrations, by Chakrapani Misra , Yashashree Munde and Rajeswari Mukherjee, June 17, 2020, https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/954662/the-new-normal-for-international-institutional-arbitrations

[7] Indian Council of Arbitration, http://www.icaindia.co.in/Notice-for-ICA.pdf

[8]Supra note 6

[10] SIAC COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), https://www.siac.org.sg/faqs/siac-covid-19-faqs

[11]Arbitration Privacy and Confidentiality In the Age of (Coronavirus) Technology, David C. Singer,Wiley Online Library, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alt.21849

[12] AAA Statement of Ethical Principles, https://www.adr.org/StatementofEthicalPrinciples

[14]Supra note 10

Guest Post: Response of Arbitral Institutions to the COVID-19 Crisis– An Indian Perspective: Part I

 [Pranay Jaiswal, a fourth year student at the ILS Law College, Pune, writes on how well the arbitral institutions in India have responded to the Covid19 crisis. This interesting post is in two parts. This is the first part of the post] 

Response of Arbitral Institutions to the COVID-19 Crisis–  An Indian Perspective: Part 1

By Pranay Jaiswal, IV BA.LLB, ILS Law College, Pune.


With advent of global pandemic, everything on this planet has come to a standstill creating hurdles in daily life. Dispensation of Justice is one of the crucial things which is witnessing significant impact due to the COVID-19 crises. Arbitration being the alternatve dispute resolution method to litigation is also facing the hurdles making it difficult to make it accessible for the parties. This piece analyses the problems that are being encountered in the prevailing circumstances and how the arbitral insitutions are tackling towards it or what are the measure that can imbibed to make the procedure party- friendly.  

1.      Introduction

In the prevailing circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increase in the number of disputes arising out of contracts, which are to be resolved. Parties are unable to find solutions to the crisis and an unforeseen situation that the pandemic has resulted in.

The conventional way of resolution of disputes through litigation is found to be cumbersome as the physical operation of the Courts has come to a standstill due to the lockdown restrictions. Even though the courts are phasing to new alternatives such as video conferencing, non-urgent matters remain in abeyance.

Parties are facing problems in performing their part of contracts leading to substantial difficulty in project completion. The defaulting parties are relying on the ground of force majeure and other defences such as incapacity to perform, change of law, delay in payment, etc. This has led to many unresolved issues which are likely to be referred to arbitration in the near future, thereby leading to a flood of references to Arbitral Institutions.

Arbitral Institutions will have to get these disputes resolved in an efficient, effective and in an expeditious manner in the backdrop of the COVID-19 situation. Some Arbitral Institutions have positively reacted to the pandemic situation by taking steps which set a benchmark for other Arbitral Institutions to follow. These measures are the subject-matter of this post.

2.      Virtual Hearings

Virtual hearings are becoming the norm in International Arbitration considering that proceedings cannot be conducted in person. Incubating the usage of technology during such times when parties cannot meet in person to resolve disputes, virtual hearings are certainly going to prove a definite alternative to the existing way of conducting proceedings. Hence, there are numerous benefits that virtual hearings provide, even outside the circumstance in which we currently find ourselves.[1]

At the same time, virtual hearings bring with themselves, certain problems. As is the human nature, parties tend to lose concentration in lengthy proceedings that could prove as a major drawback of virtual hearings. Nonetheless, this can be regulated by Tribunals with the consent of parties, by scheduling the hearings at specific time slots convenient to all the parties. This will be in consonance with the fundamental principle of arbitration: equal treatment of the parties.

Additionally, major issues arise out of cross-examinations held virtually. Evidence could be manipulated, putting one party at a disadvantage.

To mitigate this problem, tribunals could seek a 360 degree view of the witness. Another method to address this issue is to enable Arbitral Tribunals to focus/zoom on the witness’s image on the screen which will help in detecting cues that suggest that the witness is being coached. For instance, the fact that a witness is constantly looking away from the camera may indicate that another person is aiding the witness during cross-examination. Whispers and shuffling of papers may raise suspicions that something is afoot.

Another concern that virtual hearings attract is that of  “Seat of the arbitration”. Previously, the parties used to agree upon the seat expressly or impliedly or the tribunal would designate the seat. However, a decision on the seat would be a challenge in ‘online’ proceedings. Consider, for instance, a case where the sole arbitrator is located in India, one party is located in New Zealand and the other party is located in Sri Lanka. The party in New Zeland has to create a software as per the contrct for the Sri Lankan party. In this case, it would be extremely difficult for the tribunal to designate a seat, especially if parties have not agreed to any seat in the arbitration agreement. This is a grey area that needs further research and Arbitral Institutions should address to the earliest.

3.      Recourse to Emergency Arbitration

Emergency arbitration is witnessing a significant rise in International Arbitration in recent times, especially owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Access to emergency relief could preserve the status quo and protect cash flow to contractors executing projects.

Certain arbitral tribunals have digitized applications for emergency arbitrators.[3] Arbitral Institutions in India provide recourse to such procedure under their rules. For instance, the Delhi Centre for International Arbitration, Nani Palkhiwala Arbitration Centre and Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration have incorporated similar provisions in their respective arbitration rules.

However, it is pertinent to note that even if these institutions have incorporated the provisions of emergency arbitration, the position of the Indian Courts is very dicey regarding it. It can be seen from the judgement of HSBC PI Holdings[4] and of Raffels Design International[5] that there is no uniformity on the stand of the Indian Courts regarding the enforceability of the emergency awards.

4.      Electronic Correspondence

Many institutions have explicitly dispensed with the need for hard copy submissions. Requests for arbitration and evidentiary submissions can be made via email. Some institutions have already informed parties to ongoing arbitration that email would be the only mode of correspondence between the institution, parties and arbitrators. Electronic correspondence is something that presents very little concern for commercial parties.[6]

5.      E-filing – Written Submissions and Evidentiary Documents (Electronic Bundles)

Arbitral Institutions have been stressing upon the e-filing of written submissions. Even documents relevant to a case and of evidentiary nature are made to be submitted online.[7] Institutions like LCIA, ICC have already issued guidelines pertaining to initiation of the new arbitral proceedings through the online filing system of the institution.[8]

Similarly, in India, the ICA has issued a notice describing a procedure for filing of arbitration matters.[9] Even so, the ICA has forced the parties to submit the hard copies of documents post the lockdown orders, which may not be desirable.[10]

6.      Exclusion of Oral hearings.

Given the prevailing conditions of the pandemic, certain flexible steps have been introduced by Arbitral Institutions with the consent of the parties.  In some cases, parties have jointly requested for suspension of the proceedings to hold “without prejudice” settlement talks. In less complex cases, parties have requested the tribunal to dispense with oral hearings and decide the dispute based on documents alone.[11]

In India, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), has issued a consolidated guidance note[12] wherein it has mentioned that the arbitrator may prescribe a fast track procedure for expeditious disposal of disputes where the arbitrator may decide upon the documents alone, on the exclusion of oral evidence.[13]

[1] Key measures taken by Arbitral Institutions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Stephen Harwood,


[3]How COVID-19 might affect international arbitration, by Tola Adeseye, APRIL 8, 2020 http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/how-covid-19-might-affect-international-arbitration/         

[4] MANU/MH/0050/2014

[5] MANU/DE/2754/2016


[7]COVID-19: Arbitrating in the Midst of a Pandemic, by Matteo Clarkson Maciel, 01 APRIL 2020


[8]LCIA Online Filing, https://onlinefiling.lcia.org/

[9] Indian Council of Arbitration, http://www.icaindia.co.in/Notice-for-ICA.pdf

[10]Supra note 6


[13] Section 29B of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Guest Post: Transparency in Functioning of Arbitral Institutions: Global Best Practices v. Indian Institutions

[This guest post by Mr. Pascal Sasil R, School of Law, CHRIST University, looks at how arbitral institutions in India compare with their global counterparts on the issue of publication of statistics of the  cases that those institutions have handled. Publication of statistics enable users take an objective view over the performance of such institutions and also compare them.] 

Transparency in Functioning of Arbitral Institutions:

Global Best Practices v. Indian Institutions

-Pascal Sasil R, School of Law, CHRIST University, Bangalore.

Arbitration in India has indeed come as a welcome change, in the past three decades or so, owing to the immense impetus it brings in as an alternative to the immensely burdened conventional judicial system, i.e., the courts of the land. The 2012 Bharat Aluminium Co v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services judgement proved to be the watershed moment for Arbitration in India. This being said, institutional arbitration has proven to be a damp squib on the Indian front and has indeed contributed to India being branded arbitration unfriendly. While various intrinsic and extrinsic factors have contributed to this notion, this article aims at providing an inkling as to the functioning of arbitral institutions in India.

Towards this end, this article mainly looks at the transparency angle: how far arbitral institutions in India are transparent in their functioning so as to provide its users, both current and prospective, as to their functioning. Transparency in functioning enables parties to make an informed choice of arbitral institutions. It also fosters a sense of competition among arbitral institutions. Effective competition fosters party autonomy. An empirical metric of the level of transparency is the data published by arbitral institutions on the cases handled by them. Such  data includes

This article compares data published by six prominent arbitral institutions in the world[1] on the one hand and well-known arbitral institutions in India. 

Name of the Global Arbitral Institution

No. of Cases Filed/ Refrred.

(Intl. Arbn.)*


Geographical origin of the Cases

Disputed Amount Value

Awards Delivered/


International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration[2]

869 (75%)

Latin America & Caribbean-


Central & West Asia-10.8%

North America (USA & Canada)-


Central & East Europe-


Sub Saharan Africa-5.2%

North Africa-


North and West Europe-


South and East Asia and the Pacific-


US $ 45.18 Billion

586 awards, (145 partial awards,

397 final awards and 44 awards by consent)

London Court of International Arbitration[3]

395 (95%)

United Kingdom- 18.6%

North America- 3.1%

Caribbean- 4.1%

Central and South America- 4.8%

MENA- 13.1%

Africa- 10.2%

Oceania- 1.5%

Asia- 10%

CIS- 8.2%

Central and Eastern Europe- 2.2%

Northern Europe 0.2%

Western Europe 23.8%



Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce[4]

175 (50%)

Parties from 44 different countries appeared in disputes before the SCC in 2019.

Russia, Germany, and the USA were the most common party nationalities in SCC proceedings, outside Sweden.

1.6 Billion Euros

Half of the awards rendered under the SCC Arbitration Rules in 2019, was rendered between six to twelve months from when the case was referred to the arbitrator or tribunal. Another 27% of the awards were rendered within 6 months from the date of referral.

Vienna International Arbitral Centre[5]

45 (N/A)

Austria – 26

U.S.A. – 6

Poland – 4

Russia – 4

Azerbaijan – 3

Germany – 3

United Kingdom – 3

Hungary – 3

Luxembourg – 3

Romania – 3

Slovakia – 3

Albania – 2

Switzerland – 2


450 Million Euros

N/A (51 pending cases at the end of the Calendar Year)

Singapore International Arbitration Centre[6]

479 (87%)

416 International cases and 63 Domestic cases.


SG $ 10.91 Billion

169 Awards were issued in 2019.

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre[7]

308 (80.9%)

Top 10 Nations :

1.  Hong Kong
2.  Mainland China
3.  British Virgin Islands
4.  United States
5.  Cayman Islands
6.  Singapore
7.  South Korea
8.  United Kingdom
9.  Switzerland
10. Macau


US $ 4.7 Billion

48 arbitrations administered by HKIAC were concluded by Final Award.

   *Percentage/Number of International Cases among the total number of cases referred to the Respective

     Arbitral Institution in the Calendar Year       

The data provided by the Indian counterparts, i.e., renowned arbitral institutions in India

Name of the Indian Arbitral Institution

Number of Cases Filed

(International Arbitrations)*


Geographical origin of the Cases

Disputed Amount Value

Awards Delivered/Approved

Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration[8]

8 (N/A)

Mumbai, Delhi, Jaipur, Chandigarh, and Africa.

US $ 18,242,000


Indian Council of Arbitration

N/A (N/A)




Delhi International Arbitration Centre[9]

2328(in the year 2018) (N/A)



303 (in the year 2018)

Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre

N/A (N/A)





Indian Institute of Arbitration & Mediation

N/A (N/A)





*Percentage/Number of International Cases among the total number of cases referred to the

          Respective Arbitral Institution in the Calendar Year                                         

It is clear from the above data that Indian arbitral institutions are reluctant in presenting data pertaining to the arbitrations handled by them. While almost every other global arbitral institutions present annual reports and statistics, we are met with little to no data on the Indian front.

The non-availability of the said data presents multiple-fold problems. At the ground level, various types pertinent data such as number of cases, awards delivered, so on and so forth, kept away from the public view, creates a sense of faithlessness and ripples of doubt on the efficacy of the arbitration process in general apart from casting doubts on the efficacy of the said institution. Time concern is one of the major factors that pushes entities towards arbitration and when the said time efficiency or the number of awards passed in a said period is not published, it defeats the very purpose of alternative  dispute resolution.


Apart from party specific concerns, the lack of data in the public forum also poses significant constraints to users in choosing the better arbitral institution.  Further, lack of data has a chilling effect on a proper analysis of arbitral institutions in India.

Thus, comparatively, global institutions have continued to dominate as global leaders in transparency too. This lack of transparency indeed comes as an often less debated aspect but, a dangerous peril that might end up having serious repercussions on the growth of arbitration in India.

India’s first significant attempt at strengthening the roots of institutional arbitration came with the setting up of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, way back in 1995. This being said, the Indian trend of ad-hoc arbitration over institutional arbitration continues to hold good till this day. This has been presented, based on a survey carried out by PWC on Corporate Attitudes and Practices towards Arbitration in India[10]. The statistics showed a 47% to 40% preference to as hoc and institutional arbitration, respectively. Other such ground reports present an almost similar view too. While non-availability of the said vital, basic data might not be the only reason influencing this choice-making process, the same might indeed have a potentially greater than expected impact courtesy of credibility as a factor influencing the choice-making process of an average individual or entity.

Justice B.N. Srikrishna chaired Report of the High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India[11], had proposed for a lot in fine print. The said report analysed the various common reasons for international arbitration institutions proving to be successful under the title, wherein various factors such as Arbitral Rules, Governance Structure, Case Management Services, amongst others. Along the same lines, the author believes that publication of annual data and transparency in the same is a common trend identified among the top six arbitration institutions, we have located and comparatively analysed.

While the report does not discuss about the same in detail, the author believes that the  proposed Arbitration Council of India, courtesy of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of  2019[12] will have to play a proactive role in setting up the balance between confidentiality of private data and fair publication of generalised data with nil prejudice to the interests of the parties and entities that make use of the services. Such a balance shall indeed boost institutional arbitration in India and play a significant role in influencing credibility and reducing those contemporary woes of institutionalised arbitration on the Indian front.


[1] Aibek Ahmadov, Born’s Finest: 19 Leading Arbitral Institutions of the World, LINKED IN, (Mar. 18 2015), <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/borns-finest-19-leading-arbitral-institutions-world-aibek-ahmedov/>, last accessed on 28th July 2020.

[3] Full Report Available at: https://www.lcia.org/LCIA/reports.aspx 

[4] Full Report Available at: https://sccinstitute.com/statistics/

[10] Corporate Attitudes & Practices towards Arbitration in India, PWC, available at: <https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2013/corporate-attributes-and-practices-towards-arbitration-in-india.pdf>, last accessed on 28th July, 2020.


[11] Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Report of the High Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India, (30th July, 2017), available at: < http://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Report-HLC.pdf>, last accessed on 28th July, 2020.


[12] Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of  2019, (No. 33 Of 2019 dated 9th of August, 2019).