Online Dispute Resolution: A Game Changer

As a result of COVID-19’s influence, there had to be adjustments made to how arbitrations for conflict resolution are conducted and this is how Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) came into being. ODR is an extension of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that takes place through digital platforms. In essence, it denotes e-ADR and is an integration of technology with ADR. It typically consists of one or more of the following: negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or some combination of these.

As online commerce has grown, so has the necessity for a dispute resolution system to handle any disagreements that may arise. In 1996, researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Maryland took the first steps towards developing ODR programmes. eBay’s online mediation model for buyer-seller disagreements was launched in the year 1999. To help its users work out their differences, eBay implemented a system of online mediation. In just two weeks, this project was able to settle 200 disagreements. In 2010, eBay’s online mediation process resolved more than 60 million conflicts, allowing the company to reach more equitable outcomes for all parties involved. The global success of these relatively small platforms has attracted the interest of governments throughout the world. In 2004, New York County was the first in the nation to use ODR. After seeing the success of ODR systems like Brazil’s and Europe’s European Online Disputes Resolution Platform, governments around the world began adopting similar systems.

In June 2020, Niti Aayog, in India, brought together key stakeholders, including senior judges of the Supreme Court, secretaries from key government ministries, and leaders of the industry, for advancing ODR in India. Thereafter, on June 10, 2021, a handbook was released containing rules, policies, and expectations from the system. India is in grave need of a system like ODR because the Indian judicial system is under tremendous pressure with over 4.7 million cases pending across different levels of the judiciary. Due to this, there is a huge backlog of cases that are pending for the past 30 years.

ODR is time and cost-effective, and this is a very important factor in delayed justice. The economic burden associated with dispute resolution can hinder a person’s access to justice. Anyone with the help of ODR can do the arbitration from anywhere, and ODR also has the potential to reduce legal costs. The system of ODR is quicker at giving awards and resolving issues than ADR. Since it’s conducted online, the synchronisation of schedules is also done with much ease. It also eliminates the bias made by human judgement as it is much more secure and strict and the proceedings are easily available, and any higher authority can review the whole process.

For any system to grow, the governance framework must encourage the growth of innovation both within the government and the private sector. Even though ODR is still in its development stages, it has already started to show great potential by reducing the load on overburdened courts and resolving matters more effectively. ODR is the future of dispute resolution. We should accept it rather than oppose it, as it delivers efficiency and is cost-effective. Overall, ODR has the potential to transform the Indian judicial system by being a more efficient and accessible system of dispute resolution. With the right support, ODR can become an integral part of India’s legal ecosystem and contribute to the country’s growth and development.

Image Credits:

Photo by Anna Shvets: 

ODR is time and cost-effective, and this is a very important factor in delayed justice. The economic burden associated with dispute resolution can hinder a person’s access to justice. Anyone with the help of ODR can do the arbitration from anywhere, and ODR also has the potential to reduce legal costs. The system of ODR is quicker at giving awards and resolving issues than ADR. Since it’s conducted online, the synchronisation of schedules is also done with much ease. It also eliminates the bias made by human judgement as it is much more secure and strict and the proceedings are easily available, and any higher authority can review the whole process.


Concurrent Remedies under RERA and Consumer Protection Act: Which is more effective?

“Real estate cannot be lost or stolen, nor can it be carried away. Purchased with common sense, paid for in full, and managed with reasonable care, it is about the safest investment in the world.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President                                       

By stating a quote said by the then-former U.S. President, we come to an understanding that owning a house that can be called your own is something that every individual dreams of. But, in most cases, the hurdles that a buyer has to overcome in achieving his dream lead to a lot of financial and mental distress. This distress can be caused by a variety of factors, the most common of which is fraud or cheating by unscrupulous builders and real estate agents. 

Hence, it is vital for a buyer to know about the various legal remedies at his disposal. Furthermore, it is crucial to understand which of the various legal remedies is the best approach. This article analyses the various legal recourses available and the forum that would best redress the buyers’ concerns.


The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016


RERA prescribes that the promoter shall not accept more than 10% (ten percent) of the total value of the real estate property before entering into the agreement for sale[1]. Further, the promoter is required to maintain a separate account with 70% (seventy percent) of the project funds. If the builder wants to modify the sanction plan under RERA, he requires the consent of two-thirds of the allottees. Under RERA, if any defect is brought to the attention of the promoter within a period of 5(five) years of handing over possession of the property, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify the defect[2].

RERA mandates that every real estate project be registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Without the registration of the real estate project, the promoter is not allowed to book, sell, or invite any person to purchase the project[3]. The applications must be filed addressing it to RERA with the necessary approvals from the local authorities, along with a development plan, proforma of all agreements that are signed by the company, details relating to contractors, real estate agents, architects, structural engineers, and other people concerned with the project, the details of the total carpet area of the apartments for sale in the project and a declaration signed with an affidavit confirming that it is free from all encumbrances. The following provisions bind the promoters as well as the real estate agents, providing the buyers with holistic protection.

Non-compliance or default with any of the aforementioned provisions resulted in a penalty of up to 10% (ten percent) of the total project cost and up to three years in prison[4]. The builders are also mandated to deposit 70% (seventy percent) of the project funds into a separate bank account to avoid the problem of builders diverting the funds of the project to another new project[5].

Grievances with regard to violations of the RERA can be filed on the RERA website, which acts as a single repository for all real estate project data and filing grievances[6]. The Real Estate regulatory authority has been prescribed a resolution time of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the application[7]. Further, the tribunal can hear appeals of the authority’s rulings within 60 (sixty) days[8]. Any appeal from the tribunal lies before the High Court and must be filed within a period of 60 (sixty) days of the decision. If there is a pending case before the Consumer Forum pertaining to the damages caused by the false advertisements and non-adherence to the project specification, approved plan, or failure to complete the project on the specified date, the case can be withdrawn and filed before the RERA adjudicating officer[9].


Overview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019


The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and the new Act of 2019 were enacted to provide a simple and quick solution to consumers’ grievances against any deficiency in services or defect in goods. It is organised into three levels: the District Forum, the State Commission, and the National Commission (“Consumer Forum”). The Act defines “product seller,” and it includes a seller of immovable property only if that person is engaged in the construction of flats or homes or the sale of constructed homes[10]. As a result, builders and real estate agents are covered by the Act.

Under the said Act, only consumers can file a complaint, the term consumer is defined as a person who buys goods for consideration but doesn’t include a person who obtains such goods for commercial or resale purposes[11]. As a result, for the purposes of this article, those individuals are considered consumers who purchase a home or other property for personal use rather than commercial use.

In case of any defect or deficiency in the product or services, the consumer can file a complaint before the consumer forum within a period of 2 (two) years from the date on which the cause of action arose[12]. The consumer forums have a pecuniary limit. Hence, the District forum entertains complaints where the value of goods and services is not more than 1 crore rupees[13], State Commissions can entertain complaints that are above 1(one) crore and below 10 (ten) crore[14] and all complaints above 10 (ten) crores need to be filed with the National Commission[15].

Under the Act, the complaint is disposed of within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the notice by the opposite parties[16]. The Act empowers the forums to grant compensation for loss incurred and punitive damages in appropriate cases.



Does RERA Reduce the Scope of CPA?


Before the enactment of the RERA, the Consumer Forum used to deal with matters relating to allottees. Following the enactment, the Consumer Forum’s jurisdiction to deal with allottee-related issues was not barred by the RERA. The standing committee also clarified that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums was not taken away by the establishment of the Real Estate Tribunal. Further, the consumer also has the discretion to withdraw the complaint pending before the Consumer Forum, with the permission of the said forum, and file an application before the adjudicating officer under RERA[17].

In Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors.[18] the court referred to Section 71 of the RERA, which enables the consumer whose complaint is pending before the Consumer Forum to withdraw and go before the adjudicating officer. But the court held that the said provision has to be read with Section 88 of the said act, which explicitly states that the provision of RERA is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. As a result, the court concluded that the complainant was not required to withdraw and transfer the complaint before the adjudicating officer. The complainant was empowered to simultaneously pursue remedies in both the forum on the strength of section 88 of the act.

The Apex Court, in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India and Ors [19], held that buyers of flats could avail concurrent remedies under Consumer Protection Act and RERA.

In M3M India Pvt Ltd v. Dinesh Sharma[20] the court considered the question of whether the proceedings before the consumer forum can commence after the commencement of the RERA. It was held that the remedies that are provided under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act are concurrent in nature and the jurisdiction of the commission or the Consumer Forum will not be ousted by RERA, specifically Section 79 of the Act.

In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee[21] the Supreme Court held that even though the proceeding in the National Commission is a judicial proceeding, within the definition of the Civil Procedure Code it is not a Civil Court. Although the National Commission has the trappings of a Civil Court, it cannot be termed a Civil Court. Therefore, the bar that has been provided under Section 79 of RERA is not applicable to the Consumer Forum. This judgement was strongly relied on in the below-mentioned judgement.

Further, in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni & Another[22] Section 79 of the RERA bars the civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter over which the Authority, the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by the RERA. The Apex Court held that it did not bar the complainant from filing complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. The section only imposes limitations on the Civil Courts’ ability to try issues that the adjudicating authority is empowered to entertain. As the Consumer Forum is not the same as the Civil Court the limitation does not apply.

Section 18 of the Act states that there is no bar to any aggrieved party from pursuing any other remedy that is available. Section 88 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other laws in force. However, on the contrary, Section 89 of the act provides that RERA shall have an overriding effect. The court cleared up the confusion by stating that even though Section 89 states that the Act shall have an overriding effect, the buyers can still approach the other forums under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that parallel proceedings in different forums can exist. The court established that the aggrieved party could avail of parallel remedies under RERA as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.

A Comparative Study of RERA and Consumer Protection Act


The following are the requisite pointers that can be considered to determine which forum best serves the needs of homebuyers. 

Limitation Period

RERA has not provided any limitation period within which a complaint needs to be filed. However, according to the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint must be filed within two years of the cause of action. Hence, if the time period since the cause is more than 2 years, then the complainant can’t file a complaint before the Consumer Forum; the only remedy available at the complainant’s disposal is adjudication under the RERA.

Filing of a Complaint

Under RERA, any person who has been aggrieved by the builder or developer can file a complaint. However, under the Act, only a person who is a consumer can file a complaint. As a result, if a person does not fall within the definition of “consumer,” or if he has purchased a property for commercial purposes, or if any other person is dissatisfied with the developer, the only recourse is to approach RERA for adjudication.

Under RERA, the complaints are filed on the RERA website, and the process is simplified with minimal to no opportunity for modification because many States have distinct prescribed methods for filing complaints under RERA (including the format). However, under the Act, the complaint must be submitted in writing to the relevant authorities; it involves a complex procedure and includes documentation evidence; as a result, it appears to be a more time-consuming process. 

Pecuniary Limitations

The Act has prescribed pecuniary limitations based on the value of the property. Suppose the complainant’s property is above Rs. 1 crore, then he has to approach the State Commission and if its above Rs. 10 crores, he has to approach the National Commission for filing a complaint. Whereas RERA does not have any pecuniary limitations based on the value of the property. Hence, the complaint can be filed before the regulatory authority of the state in which the property is situated. Suppose the value of the property is more than Rs. 10 crores, then it is convenient for the buyer to adjudicate the dispute before RERA as the National Commission that is given jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act is situated in New Delhi.


The Act is empowered only to grant pecuniary compensation. It doesn’t enforce any preventive measures nor does it provide for any specific performance or imprisonment of the defaulting party. RERA, however, is exclusively empowered to provide certain non-compensatory remedies. Further, it is also empowered to impose imprisonment for up to 3 (three) years on the defaulting developers.  If the consumer is only seeking compensatory relief, then the consumer forum is the right forum to approach. But if the buyer is looking for a deterrent remedy, then filing a complaint before RERA is a better option.

Commercial Dispute

The Consumer Forum doesn’t deal with commercial issues. RERA has no such bar on the adjudication of commercial issues. Therefore, if an individual doesn’t fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined under the Act, then the best and only recourse available in the hands of the buyer is to file a complaint under RERA.

Time Period for Disposal of Dispute

The resolution time specified under RERA is 60 (sixty) days[23]. Similarly, the Act states that every complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receiving notice from the other party[24].  However, in practice, disposing of matters in both forums takes much longer.




For regulating the “real estate” sector, the “Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act” is a landmark piece of legislation imposing time-bound obligations on promoters. Consumers’ or homebuyers’ rights are intended to be protected by ensuring fair play.

It is worth noting that RERA has not only been actively involved in maintaining transparency and accountability in the real estate sector, but has also assisted consumers and homebuyers in obtaining possession quickly and easily.

From the above analysis, we can deduce that RERA has finally ended up being an extension of the “Consumer Protection Act” which helps to address the growing need for transparency in favour of consumers as well as builders.

In light of the preceding comparative study and judicial pronouncements, we can safely conclude that it is entirely up to the allottee to choose either a concurrent remedy or a single forum to resolve his or her disputes. But it is a tedious process for a common man to simultaneously approach two different forums, the RERA or the Consumer Forum. 

The concurrent remedy has broadened the range of remedies available to home buyers. Both acts have their benefits and drawbacks in terms of resolving the buyers’ issues. The most effective forum for the buyer to approach for resolving his issue is highly dependent on the facts of the case and the remedy that the aggrieved party is seeking from the respective forum.

Concurrent Remedies under RERA and Consumer Protection Act: Which is more effective?


[1] Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[2] Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[3] Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[4] Section 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[5] Section 4(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[6] Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[7] Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[8] Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[9] Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[10] Section 1(37) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[11] Section 1(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 201

[12] Section 69(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[13] Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[14] Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[15] Section 58 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[16] 38(7) of of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

[17] Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[18] Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana CWP No. 38144 of 2018

[19] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India and Ors 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1005

[20] M3M India Pvt Ltd v. Dinesh Sharma W.P.(C)43/2019

[21] Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 2010 SC 1162

[22] M/s Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni & Another (Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020)

[23] Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

[24] Section 38(7) of the of Consumer Protection Act, 2019


Image Credits: Photo by

The concurrent remedy has increased the scope of remedy that the home buyer can avail. Both acts have their benefits and drawbacks in terms of resolving the buyers’ issues. The most effective forum for the buyer to approach for resolving his/her issue is highly dependent on the facts of the case and the remedy that the aggrieved party is seeking from the respective forum.


Validity of an Arbitration Clause: No Strait-Jacket Formula

On September 7, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in the case of Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers[1], holding that no strait jacket formula can be made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to determine the particulars of an arbitration clause. It further held that an arbitration clause must be treated as final and binding even if specific words like “final” or “binding” are not used in such a clause.

Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers

The case related to one Babanrao (the Appellant), who was the owner of a property situated in Aurangabad. The Appellant intended to build residential and commercial complexes on this property. Samarth Builders & Developers (Respondent No. 1), a company specialising in the building of homes and commercial buildings, learned of the Appellant’s intention to build such a residential and commercial complex and approached him. A “Development Agreement” (DA) was subsequently signed by the Appellant and Respondent No.1. The Appellant, thereafter, signed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Respondent No. 1.  Respondent No. 2, in the civil appeal was the partner of Respondent No. 1.

According to the DA, Respondent No.1 had to build “Amay Apartments” on the property within 15 months. However, this deadline could have been extended with the payment of a penalty. Respondent No. 1 accepted the conditions of the DA and stated that he would build 45 percent of the constructed space before or on the deadline of the 15-month period, retaining the other 55 percent of the developed section for himself.

Respondent No.1 was, however, unable to finish the work within the allotted time. Aggrieved by this act, the Appellant gave notice to terminate the DA and to cancel the GPA. On 11.07.2016 the cancellation of the agreement and GPA were also publicised in a newspaper by the Appellant. Since, Respondent No.1 did not respond to the notice of the Appellant issued under Clause 18 of the DA, which carried an arbitration clause, the Appellant was constrained to approach the High Court.

Clause 18 of the DA reads as follows:

“18. All the disputes or differences arising between the parties hereto as to the interpretation of this Agreement or any covenants or conditions thereof or as to the rights, duties, or liabilities of any part hereunder or as to any act, matter, or thing arising out of or relating to or under this Agreement (even though the Agreement may have been terminated), the same shall be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator mutually appointed, failing which, two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the dispute or difference, and these two Arbitrators will appoint a third Arbitrator and the Arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactment thereof.”

The Arbitration Clause

Before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the Appellant had filed an application pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, after receiving no response from the Respondents. The Respondents claimed that clause 18 of the DA could not be enforced because it lacked the precise phrase “to be bound by the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal.” The Hon’ble High Court ruled in favour of the Respondents and determined that the clause lacked necessary components of a legitimate arbitration agreement and did not expressly specify that the arbitrator’s ruling would be binding. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Issue Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

If an arbitration clause lacks specific language like “binding” or “final,” should it still be considered a valid agreement for the purpose of invoking powers under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

While analysing the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that there is no precise form of an arbitration clause, and that Section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 does not provide a specific form of arbitration agreement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court critically analysed Clause 18 of the DA and concluded that the terms of the agreement were clear. It made it clear that the term “disputes shall be” referred to arbitration, meant that the reference to arbitration was clear in the DA. Additionally, it was also observed that the contract contained clear instructions for choosing a third arbitrator and that the parties would be subject to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further opined that the requirement and purpose of the parties to be bound by the arbitral tribunal are mandated by Clause 18 of the DA. The arbitral clause was held to be not invalidated by the omission of the phrases “final” and “binding.” The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay was thus set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a sole arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute.

Key Takeaway

Though, the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court gives considerable breathing room for an arbitration clause, it is imperative to consider that an insufficiently written arbitration clause does hinder the process of arbitration. The only solution in such a scenario is to fix the deficiency in the arbitral clause. The parties must ensure that the arbitration agreement is well drafted so that there are no errors and the intention of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration can be easily inferred. This will also ensure that the parties will not be forced to approach the courts to determine the validity of the clause.


[1] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1165.

The only solution in such a scenario is to fix the deficiency in the arbitral clause. The parties must ensure that the arbitration agreement is well drafted so that there are no errors and the intention of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration can be easily inferred. 


Claims Settlement Proceedings Under MSME Act 2006

In the month of February, the Government of India released the Draft National Micro Small Medium Enterprises (MSME) Policy, to promote competitiveness, technology up-gradation, infrastructure, cluster development, dedicated credit, procurement of products & financial assistance to MSME. The Policy was issued with the objective of fostering a conducive business ecosystem to enable ease of doing business for MSMEs and to develop appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. One of the key observations made in the policy was that the dispute resolution mechanism for the sector was not ‘industry-friendly.’


The Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Development Act was notified in 2006 to address different issues affecting MSMEs, inter alia, the coverage and investment ceiling of the sector. The MSME Act seeks to facilitate the development of these enterprises and also enhance their competitiveness. It provides the legal framework for recognition of the concept of “enterprise”, which comprises both manufacturing and service entities. It defines medium enterprises for the first time and seeks to integrate the three tiers of these enterprises, namely, Micro, Small and Medium. It empowers the Central Government to undertake programmes and issue guidelines and instructions to develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs.

Definitions of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises

In India, the enterprises are classified broadly into two categories: (i) Manufacturing and (ii) Services. These categories of enterprises have been further classified into Micro, Small and Medium enterprises under Section 7 of the MSME Act as follows:

Enterprise Category

Investment in Plant & Machinery

Not Exceeding

Annual Turnover

Not Exceeding


INR 1 Crore

INR 5 Crore


INR 10 Crore

INR 50 Crore


INR 50 Crore

INR 250 Crore


Registration of MSME/Memorandum of MSME

Any micro, small and medium enterprise, before starting an enterprise, may file a Udyog Aadhaar Memorandum (the “UAM” or “Memorandum”) in Form-I. The UAM may be filed online on the website of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India at in order to instantly get a unique Udyog Aadhaar Number (UAN); or a hard copy of the duly filled Form I, shall be submitted to the concerned District Industries Centre (DIC) or to the Office of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise-Development Institute (MSME-DI) under the Development Commissioner, MSME. Consequent thereto, a Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate in Form II will be generated and mailed to the email address of the enterprise as provided in the UAM. 

The existing MSMEs have to file the Memorandum within One Hundred and Twenty (120) days from the commencement of the Act. UAM/MEMORANDUM is a one-page online registration system for MSMEs based on self – certification. This is a path-breaking step to promote ease-of-doing-business for MSMEs in India as the UAM replaces the filing of Entrepreneurs’ Memorandum (EM part-I & II).

While examining the purpose and intent of the MSME Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide common order in P. Nos. 27670, 27673, 27691, 27693, 27826, 27829, 28010, 28034 of 2021 and 4721, 6249 and 7616 of 2022 observed inter alia, an ‘Enterprise’ is one by whatever name called, which is engaged in the manufacture or production of goods in any manner pertaining to any industry specified in the first schedule of Act 65 of 1951 or engaged in providing or rendering of any services.

Additionally, a supplier, as per the definition of the Act, should be engaged in selling goods “produced by micro or small enterprises and rendering services that are provided by such enterprises.” Here, the emphasis has also been placed on services required for the purpose of selling etc. goods produced by micro or small enterprises. “The conjunction ‘and’ used in section 2(n) (iii) makes it clear that the services that are rendered are services related to the goods that are produced by micro and small enterprises. The legislature used the conjunction and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the services which are rendered are those pertaining to the goods manufactured and produced by the enterprises.”

The High Court firmly observed that the services that are referred to under the said Act cannot be treated as every service that is rendered. The services referred to must have a direct connection with the manufacture and production of goods.  

Provisions Dealing with Claim Settlement Proceedings Under MSME Act


Sections 15-24 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSME) Act, 2006 deal with the issues relating to the Delayed Payments to Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) by the Buyers to the MSE supplier. As per Section 15 of the MSME Act, the Buyer shall make payment to the Supplier as per their commercial understanding. However, the same shall not exceed forty-five (45) days from the day of acceptance or deemed acceptance of goods and services. Further, under Section 16 of the MSME Act, delayed payment to Supplier units, attracts compound interest with monthly interests at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank. In the event of any dispute with regard to any amount due, the procedure stipulated in Section 18 has to be followed, which is enumerated hereunder. Any case/reference under Section 18 of the MSME Act has to be decided in ninety (90) days.  Further, in case, the Buyer decides to challenge the award or decree passed, then as per Section 19 of the MSME Act, the Buyer has to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the decree, award or order of the court, as the case may be.

MSME Samadhaan is a Portal created by the Office of DC(MSME), Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), where Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) can file their applications online regarding delayed payments. The portal gives information about individual CPSEs/Central Ministries, State Governments, etc. and other Buyers regarding the payments pending with them in respect of the MSEs. The said portal also facilitates MSEs to file their delayed payments related complaints online. These will be viewed by MSEFC Council for their actions. These will also be visible to Concerned Central Ministries, Departments, CPSEs, State governments, etc. for pro-active actions. The portal was established with a vision to facilitate the monitoring of delayed payments in an efficient manner as disputes over delayed payments were a primary concern amongst the Sellers across the sector. The information on this portal is made available in the public domain to exert moral pressure on the defaulting parties. The MSMEs can also access the portal and monitor their cases.

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 contains provisions of Delayed Payment to Micro and Small Enterprise (MSEs). (Section 15- 24). State Governments to establish Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (MSEFC) for settlement of disputes on getting references/filing on Delayed payments (Section 20 and 21).

What are the Prerequisites for Making a Claim before MSEFC?


To file a complaint with the MSEFC, the concerned enterprise must have a Udyog Aadhar Memorandum (UAM) or Udyam Registration prior to the dispute or contract with the Supplier. Secondly, the MSME should have a valid and strong claim against the Buyer. A well-founded claim comprises a written purchase agreement and a valid invoice post-UAM or Udyam registration. Additionally, it is also crucial that the statutory duration (45 days) from the date of acceptance or deemed acceptance of the goods/service, within which the payment should have been made, stands lapsed.

While examining the requisites to invoke the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Common Order in P.Nos.27670, 27673, 27691, 27693, 27826, 27829, 28010, 28034 of 2021 and 4721, 6249 and 7616 of 2022 – held inter alia, “this Court has to hold that unless the ‘memorandum’ is filed under section 8 of Act 27 of 2006 and the contract is a pure and simple supply contract, a party cannot move the facilitation council nor can the council entertain and decide any dispute. 

The Hon’ble Court relied on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silpi Industries, which stated that, “………………. In our view, to seek the benefit of provisions under MSME Act, the seller should have registered under the provisions of the Act, as on the date of entering into the contract. In any event, for the supplies pursuant to the contract made before the registration of the unit under provisions of the MSME Act, no benefit can be sought by such entity, as contemplated under MSME Act. ………………… The appellant cannot become micro or small enterprise or supplier, to claim the benefits within the meaning of MSME Act 2006, by submitting a memorandum to obtain registration subsequent to entering into the contract and supply of goods and services. If any registration is obtained, same will be prospective and applies for supply of goods and services subsequent to registration but cannot operate retrospectively. Any other interpretation of the provision would lead to absurdity and confer unwarranted benefit in favour of a party not intended by legislation.”

Hence, to adjure the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006 and to move to the facilitation council for grievance redressal, an Entrepreneurs Memorandum as envisaged under Section 8 has to be filed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise before the authorities specified by the Central Government.

What is the Process for Filing a Complaint through the Samadhaan Portal?


As per Section 18 of the MSME Act, in the case of delay in payment beyond 45 days from the day of acceptance or deemed acceptance, MSEs Suppliers may approach the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) constituted under the Act in all State/UTs.

At present, the MSME Samadhaan portal enables Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) to file their applications online regarding delayed payments. Application in the prescribed form under the provisions of the MSME Act can be filed online on the Samadhaan Portal, which can be accessed at The Applicant shall furnish all the details as specified in the Act in the Application. The application process mandates intensive scrutiny of relevant documents such as the purchase agreements, invoices, notices served, etc. Hence, it is important to attach all the required documents along with the Application in the prescribed form. The application, once filed, is forwarded automatically online to the concerned Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (MSEFC) established by the State/UTs as per the provisions of the MSME Act 2006. After 15 days of online filing of the case, it is registered by the MSEFC concerned and action on the applications regarding delayed payment is taken by the concerned MSEFC only.

Following acceptance of the application in the prescribed form, the relevant MSEFC sends a notice to the buyer demanding immediate payment of the due amount within a specified time frame. If no payment is initiated by the Buyer within the stipulated time mentioned in the notice, the MSME can proceed with the filing of an application for the default in payment by annexing the requisite documents on the portal as per provisions of the Act.

Once a reference application for a dispute under Section 17 (Recovery of delayed payments) has been made under Section 18 of the MSME Act, the Council shall either conduct conciliation in the matter by itself or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre. It is imperative to note that, for conducting such conciliation, the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of the 1996 Act.

Furthermore, if conciliation is unsuccessful and the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Council shall either take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration, and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was conducted in accordance with an arbitration agreement referred to in the arbitration agreement.

In the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2899 of 2021] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the conciliation and arbitration proceedings under the MSME Act cannot be clubbed if the appellant did not submit a response during the conciliation stage. As per the legislative mandate, the Council is under the obligation to initiate an arbitration procedure if the conciliation procedure fails.

While observing fundamental differences between the two processes, the Apex Court in this case held that; “In conciliation, the conciliator assists the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, in an impartial and independent manner. In arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal/ arbitrator adjudicates the disputes between the parties. The claim has to be proved before the arbitrator, if necessary, by adducing evidence, even though the rules of the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. Unless otherwise agreed, oral hearings are to be held.

Further, while placing reliance on Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, it was also maintained that, “The said Section itself makes it clear that when arbitration is initiated all the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply, as if arbitration were in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act”

According to Section 18 of the MSME Act 2006, the arbitrator has to adjudicate upon the dispute and conclude the proceedings within the statutory period of ninety days from making such reference. 

Pre-deposit of Award Amount


The provisions of section 19 state, “No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court.”

Hence, in case the Buyer goes for an appeal against the award/decree, they have to deposit 75% of the award amount. The requirement was held to be mandatory in nature by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority Vs. Aska Equipments Limited (2022) 1 SCC 61

The Apex Court observed that “On a plain/fair reading of Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006, reproduced hereinabove, at the time/before entertaining the application for setting aside the award made under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the applicant/appellant has to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit. The requirement of a deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court, if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments.”

Further, the Delhi High Court in AVR Enterprises vs Union of India observed that “Section 19 of the MSME Act would apply only to proceedings initiated under section 18 of the MSME Act and would not apply to an award published by an arbitrator appointed by the parties otherwise than in accordance with section 18 of the MSME Act.”

Under Section 20, the MSME Act states that the respective State Governments are duty-bound to establish Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Councils while also laying down their jurisdictions. These Councils shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes that are between the Suppliers (within their jurisdiction as specified by the State Government) and Buyers from anywhere in India.

As per the provisions of Section 21, the Council shall consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members. The members of the Council must be appointed from amongst the following categories:

  • Chairman: Director of Industries or any other officer not below the rank of such Director, who is having administrative control of small-scale industries.
  • Member: One or more office-bearers or representatives of Associations of micro and small industries.
  • Member: One or more representatives from Banks and financial institutions, who are lending to micro, small or medium enterprises.
  • Member: One or more persons having special knowledge in the field of industry, finance, law, trade, or commerce.


Overriding Effect of Claim Settlement Proceedings Under MSME Act over Arbitration and other Applicable Laws


It is relevant to note that as per Section 24, the provisions of sections 15 to 23 of the MSME Act have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the said section has undergone intensive judicial scrutiny.

In the case of Principal Chief Engineer M/s. Manibhai and Bros (Sleeper) [Diary 16845/2017], the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of interpretation of Section 18. The Gujarat High Court opined that since the MSME Act is special legislation, it has an overriding effect and the parties governed by it are bound to follow the mechanism provided under Section 18 of the Act.

Similarly, in M/s. Porwal Sales M/s. Flame Control Industries [Arbitration Petition No. 77 of 2017], the Bombay High Court held that Section 18 (1) should be read with sub-section (4). Section 18 is only attracted when the jurisdiction of the Council is invoked by a party for an amount due under Section 17. The jurisdiction clause of Section 18(4) does not create a bar on the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Further, since under Section 18(1) the word “may” has been used, it is not mandatory for the Supplier or Buyer to initiate proceedings under Section 18. However, the Court also opined that if a reference has already been made to the Council in a case, the application for the appointment of an arbitrator should not be maintainable.

The Delhi High Court in the case of AVR Enterprises vs Union of India [CM APPL. 27219/2018], observed inter alia that if the arbitration proceedings are initiated by the parties as per the arbitration agreement and no proceedings have been initiated per Section 18, then the statutory provisions of the MSME Act shall not come into force.

Further, with respect to the contention of whether the Facilitation Council can act as both Arbitrator and Conciliator under Section 18; the High Court of Bombay in the case of Gujarat State Petronet Ltd MSEFC [WRIT PETITION NO.5459 OF 2015] opined that by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18, Section 80 of the Arbitration Act (which bars a conciliator from acting as an arbitrator in the same dispute), it is applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 18. Hence, on a harmonious interpretation of both these provisions, the Council cannot act as both and may refer the matter to any centre or institution that provides alternate dispute resolution services. 

However, in the case of Best Towers Private Limited v. Reliance Communications Limited [C.W.J.C. No. 8086 of 2018], the Patna High Court was of the view that the overriding effect extended to Section 18(3) with respect to Section 24 of the Act, which clearly overrides any bar under Section 80 of the Arbitration Act. 

The Legislature clearly intended that the Council be able to act as an arbitrator and conciliator. Differing from the observations of the Court in the abovementioned case, in the case of M/S Cummins Technologies India Private Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council [C No. 7785 of 2020], the Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that the bar under Section 80 is subject to the existence of a contrary agreement between the parties, therefore it is not absolute in nature. 

Further, given the jurisdiction of the Council under Section 18(4) and its overriding effect under Section 24, the Court held that the Council can act as both. The Court also observed that the object behind introducing such a prohibition was to eliminate incidences of personal bias in the Arbitral Tribunal. However, since the Council is a statutory body, comprising of three to five members, the incidents of such bias or prejudice are absent, ergo, eliminating the requirement of the bar under Section 80 of the Arbitration Act.

Taking a similar view, the Madras High Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs. P Ponram [Original Side Appeal No.231 of 2019] held that the Council is not barred from proceeding to arbitration under Section 18(3) after conducting conciliation under Section 18(2). It must, however, ensure that the same member, who served as the conciliator in the previous conciliation proceeding does not serve as an arbitrator unless the relevant parties agree otherwise.        

Applicability of the Limitation Act to Disputes/Claim Settlement Proceedings Under the MSME Act 2006


The deliberation of the applicability of the Limitation Act on the proceedings under Section 18 of the MSME Act has always been a grey area. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the recent case of Silpi Industries and Ors. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. 2021(224) AIC 18 has afforded clarity to the discussion. The Court noted that if the dispute arises under Section 17 of the MSME Act, a reference shall be made to the Council. The parties will then be referred to conciliation by the Council. If the Conciliation process fails, the Council shall refer the case for arbitration (either administered by itself or by any institution or centre deemed fit by the Council) per the provisions of Section 18 of the MSME. 

Further, while keeping reliance on the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee & Ors. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 468, the Supreme Court held that Section 43 of the Limitation Act clearly applies to arbitrations and that the provisions of the 1996 Act similarly apply to arbitrations initiated under the MSME Act as if an agreement between the parties under Section 7(1) of the 1996 Act exists. In light of the same, it was unequivocally held that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the MSME Act.

Structured Dispute Resolution Process


Filing complaints on the MSME Samadhaan Portal requires mandated document verification, such as work orders, agreements, invoices, etc. However, a significant number of MSMEs fail to keep a record of these requisite documents. Further, as of December 2021, only 20% of all applications filed have either been disposed of or mutually settled with Buyers, while nearly 39% of applications are yet to be addressed by the relevant authorities. Another 27% of total applications are currently under consideration[1]. This indicates that a significant number of cases have to wait for admission and then get approval to proceed further.



The observations made in the Draft National MSME Policy with respect to the inadequacy relating to the current dispute resolution mechanism catering to the needs of the MSME industry are hence confirmed by the statistics highlighted above. Hence, it has suggested a move towards establishing more facilitation councils, preferably at district levels to fast-track and aid the existing structure. Other relevant steps to establish a ‘vibrant ecosystem for the rapid growth of the MSME sector have also been envisaged to be undertaken in the near future, a development both necessary and noteworthy.

To file a complaint with the MSEFC, the concerned enterprise must have a Udyog Aadhar Memorandum (UAM) or Udyam Registration prior to the dispute or contract with the Supplier. Secondly, the MSME should have a valid and strong claim against the Buyer. A well-founded claim comprises of a written purchase agreement and a valid invoice post-UAM or Udyam registration. Additionally, it is also crucial that the statutory duration (45 days) from the date of acceptance or deemed acceptance of the goods/service, within which the payment should have been made, stands lapsed.


Blockchain Arbitration: The Future of Dispute Resolution

The current buzzword- Blockchain has advanced from being a theoretical concept to reaching the sphere of technology where it is shaping today’s society and the legal profession. The field of legal technology has not only streamlined knowledge management requirements and operational aspects of a legal office, but also transformed the way lawyers practice law!

Smart contracts and blockchains have the potential to alter the way documentation and dispute resolution are approached. Hence the concepts need integration, implementation and recognition with arbitration for a more efficient, cost-effective and automated structure.

Smart Contracts, Blockchain and Arbitration


These self-executing, new generation contracts are geared towards the realization of predetermined conditions. With the help of smart contracts, Blockchain Arbitration can facilitate storing and verification of rules and automated execution (upon a particular event constituting a breach of the agreement) by invoking the arbitration clause incorporated in the smart contract.

In case of a dispute, the smart contract will notify the Arbitrator via a blockchain-based dispute resolution interface. A party can digitize the terms of an agreement, lock the funds into a smart contract, and condition the intelligent contract so that the task at hand is fulfilled and the funds will pass through. Upon completion of the process, the self-executable nature of the smart contract will automatically enforce the award and transfer the prescribed fee to the Arbitrator.

However, it is yet to be seen how smart contracts shall interact with data protection and privacy laws, intricacies of dispute resolution, and obligations and rights of the parties involved.

Blockchain Technology: An aid to Arbitration?


Arbitration aims to be a time-bound and specialized decision-making process. In this backdrop, Blockchain Arbitration theoretically promises to be an ideal structure for the trial process in the following ways:

  • Briefs, Transcriptions & Document Management: The tool in the blockchain system can quickly and efficiently provide synopsis and briefs of the record which would be beneficial not only to the Tribunal but to the parties.
  • Elimination of intermediaries and cost-effectiveness: There shall be no mechanism requiring approval and control at every stage, and the intermediary institutions are not included in the process. For instance, Banks, involved as intermediary institutions in legal and financial transactions, incur costs at every stage of the transaction and are time-intensive in nature.
  • Automation: A blockchain-based dispute resolution platform would exclude oral hearings and the Arbitrator’s decision and automate other aspects of filing of pleadings, filing of documentary evidence, correspondence with the Arbitral Tribunal.
  • Ease in making the Arbitral Award:  Blockchain tools can assist the Tribunals in preparing awards. The tools ensure that all necessary ingredients to make the arbitral award reasoned and enforceable have been taken care of.  The blockchain will continue to prepare the award from the beginning as the arbitration progresses.
  • Confidentiality / Security of Data: Blockchain is the safest way of storing information. Each block will be authenticated by the Arbitral Tribunal and the party to the proceedings. There is no provision for changing, altering or deleting the data unilaterally. It can only be done when it is authenticated by the Arbitral Tribunal and the party to the proceedings. Since third parties are entirely absent from the proceedings, the possibility of breach of data and information is negligible. Disputes arising out of smart contracts can be made confidential which will limit the exposure of the nature of dispute between the parties. Blockchain has a decentralized structure and the security of the system is protected by cryptography.
  • Removal of human error: The reliability and validity of a transaction depend upon the accuracy of the algorithm underlying the transaction. Since, each transaction is based on algorithms, which are mathematical models, it is free from human influence and intervention and, consequently, human error. 

Security and privacy of data are primary concerns in the conventional Arbitral process. In fact, as a specific case representing the flaws of the present model of international arbitration, in July 2015, the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was hacked during an essential hearing of maritime border arbitration between China and the Philippines, in the international arbitration of the “Republic of Philippines v. People’s Republic of China.”[1]  

As far as the credibility of blockchain technology in resolving such issues is concerned, the World Economic Forum, in its 2015 survey recognized that by 2025-27, about 10% of the global GDP would be stored in blockchains, owing to its efficient attributes of data security management. By 2025, even taxes are strongly probable to be collected by employing blockchain technology. Moreover,  in its research published in 2018, World Trade Organisation described at length the opportunities that lie ahead in the future, owing to the efficacy associated with the safeguard mechanisms of blockchains. 

Legal Recognition of Blockchain Arbitration and procedure to be adopted

The UNCITRAL Electronic Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996 Convention) and the ‘UNCITRAL Convention on Electronic Communications in International Contracts (2007 Convention)’ are the primary legal instruments facilitating blockchain contracts.[3]

Articles 6 and 18 of the 2007 Convention assert the validity of on-chain arbitration by allowing for electronic data records and electronic transactions in the arbitration process, thereby providing legal recognition to on-chain arbitrations.

  1. Appointment of an Arbitrator

 Once the notice of arbitration has been sent, the appointment of an arbitrator can be done through blockchain. Thus, the exchange of documents, e-mails, and messages, etc. are all recorded automatically and replicated at all stakeholder’s computers without the involvement of any third party. The case management conference can be done online using a video conferencing facility of blockchain which is recorded and filed in the computers of all stakeholders in original and thereby removing manipulation.

  1. Pleadings

The pleadings including a statement of claim, statement of defense, counterclaims, and reply to counterclaims and further submissions can be submitted online and are automatically served to the parties & the Tribunal along with automated acknowledgment. This ensures timely submissions and helps in maintaining uniformity in the pleadings thus circulated. Any delay will also be penalized in terms of the penalty prescribed by the Tribunal or as agreed by the parties. The fear of ex-parte communication will also be mitigated when the procedural orders and communication by the Tribunal will be auto-delivered to both parties. 

  1. Interim Measures

Interim measures that are sought from courts can be executed on the blockchain if the judicial system of a particular jurisdiction allows for a seamless digital interface with the parties’ computers. In the case of an automated interface with the judicial system, the execution of court orders can also happen immediately provided the jurisdiction’s administrative machinery is using blockchain. 

  1. Recording of Evidence & Preparation of Award

 The efficiency of blockchain can be seen in evidence-taking and award preparation. Witness conferencing, cross-examination, and taking of oral evidence can be easily done using video conferencing suites, or even if hearings are done physically, they can still be transferred on blockchain and stacked for procedural integrity. Statements of expert witnesses, oral submission by experts, and expert communications can be recorded on the blockchain. 

  1. Security of Data

Blockchain is a secure way of storing information because each block is replicated and authenticated by all stakeholders. The provision to alter or delete any data does not exist until authenticated by all stakeholders. In the absence of intervention of a third party, there is no network administrator or supervisor making the possibility of data breach negligible. 

Globally, blockchain technology is being readily resorted to as an effective means of data storage, management, distribution, and transfer. Blockchain technology has immense potential to enhance the efficacy of Arbitral proceedings, especially owing to its mechanism of encryption, which helps secure data.

Contemporary issues in Blockchain Arbitration

The functioning of blockchain arbitration highlights various concerns. Firstly, in an on-chain arbitration, there would be no requirement for oral hearings which are integral to the current justice system and stand at a juxtaposition with the principles of natural justice.

Secondly, an essential principle of arbitration is the underlying idea of confidentiality. Despite the strong protection afforded by blockchain, data privacy can pose a significant concern when an independent third party gets involved as an oracle in dispute resolution. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provisions are not currently empowered enough to regulate the intricacies in the decentralized functioning of blockchain, which makes it difficult to impose liability on data controllers. Furthermore, the traceable feature of blockchain is again in conflict with the GDPR’s requirement of the “right to be forgotten“.

Thirdly, The New York Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the New York Convention”) is the most prominent code on enforcing international arbitral awards with 166 contracting states to the Convention. According to Article II of the New York Convention, an arbitration agreement must be in “writing” and requires the parties’ signature. However, in a virtually operative blockchain arbitration, there is no scope for written agreements or signatures.[4]

Challenges in the enforceability of the Blockchain arbitration award in India


Lack of enforceability of the agreement itself under the New York Convention

One problem identified with the enforceability of blockchain arbitration awards is the lack of enforceability of the agreement itself under the New York Convention which requires such agreements to be in writing or through an exchange of telegrams/telefaxes.

Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires that a valid arbitration agreement should be in “writing”. However, unlike Article II of the New York Convention, Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clarifies that an agreement would be considered as having been made in writing if it has been communicated through “electronic means”. The allowance for “electronic means” was introduced through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, yet remains undefined.

Theoretically, it can be asserted that an award generated in a blockchain arbitration may fall within the ambit of the definition of an ‘electronic record’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Difficulty in determining Awarding Country in a Blockchain Arbitration

India although is a signatory to the New York Convention, only foreign awards made in only certain Contracting States of the Convention (gazetted by the Central Government) can be enforced in view of India’s reciprocity reservation. India has gazetted less than 1/3rdof all of the Contracting States to the New York Convention.[5] 

In the working of a blockchain arbitration, Arbitrators are appointed by a blockchain-based dispute resolution platform. The award is generated on a blockchain and circulated to the parties before the Arbitrator. The parties may be in different countries and the origin/awarding country may be difficult to trace out. In the absence of details of an awarding country, the enforceability of such an award in India becomes a daunting task.


Enforcement of Arbitral Award

As per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application for enforcement of an arbitral award shall be accompanied by an original arbitral award. In a blockchain arbitration, the award is circulated as an electronic record in the blockchain to the parties directly. The concept of a hard copy/original award is alien in blockchain arbitration.


Conclusion and Suggestion

A conspectus of the aforesaid facets of the blockchain system shows that the same needs multi-fold reforms before being set to use by the legal fraternity. Even though the blockchain assures, to a great extent, protection of data, but it cannot be forgotten that the hackers also keep updating their own skills and no technology is flawless. The blockchain system has to be made dynamic enough so as to keep abreast with the challenges of new advents in unethical hacking.

Secondly, it is also required that a proper training module is formulated for lawyers of the participating countries which shall ensure unimpeded use of the technology.

Lastly, the author strongly recommends that the use of blockchain should be limited only to procedural aspects in such cases where the dispute involves issues of interpretation of the clauses and or statutes including common law. This may be achieved by adopting a hybrid model of dispute resolution with embedded human intervention modules.


[1]Gargi Sahasrabudhe, Blockchain technology and arbitration, VIA Mediation & Arbitration Centre, (Nov. 3, 2021, 5:00pm),

[2]Athul aravind, Blockchain arbitration: the future?, Law and Dispute resolution blog, (Nov. 3, 2021, 5:00pm),

[3] Dena Givari, How does arbitration intersect with the blockchain technology that underlies cryptocurrencies, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, Wolters Kluwer, (Nov. 6, 2021, 8:00pm),

[4] Idil Gncosmanoglu, Blockchain-smart contract and arbitration, Mondaq, (Nov. 5, 2021, 5:00pm),

[5] Ritika Bansal, Enforceability of awards from blockchain arbitrations in India, Kluwer arbitration Blog,, (2019)



Image Credits: 

Photo by Launchpresso on Unsplash

The use of blockchain should be limited only to procedural aspects in such cases where the dispute involves issues of interpretation of the clauses and or statutes including common law. This may be achieved by adopting a hybrid model of dispute resolution with embedded human intervention modules.


Force Majeure: Evolution of Jurisprudence in India Post COVID-19

The extraordinary outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic has had staggering effects on the economy, health and commerce of about 110 nations across the globe. Even after almost a year, the situation is far from normal. In addition to the massive pressure on the health and medical segments, several other unprecedented factors played crucial part in the whole system, economy, commerce, or business. Given the present situation of disruption of supply chaindisruption of assured manpower, uncertainty of future planning, inadequacy of security as well as the forced restraints in free commercial activities, numerous commercial contracts have either been interrupted, delayed or cancelled. The present situation has thrown light on several important questions with respect to the jurisprudence of the force majeure clause in various commercial contracts or frustration of contracts 


Force Majeure Typically in Law


The term force majeure which seems to have been borrowed from the Code Napoleon had received interpretation in several decisions of the English Courts in earlier years. In Matsoukis v. Priestman and Co.[i] . Justice Bailhache opined that force majeure would include strikes and break-down of machinery but not bad weather, or football matches, or a funeral. In Lebeeaupin v. Crispin[ii] Justice McCardie had observed: “A force majeure clause should be construed in each case with a close attention to the words which precede or follow it, and with due regard to the nature and general terms of the contract. The effect of the clause may vary with each instrument.”

In the Indian context, the Supreme Court has considered, interpreted and decided the events of force majeure in various judicial precedents, inter-alia from Satyabrata Ghosh vs Mugneeram Bangur[iii] to Energy watchdog vs CERC[iv] The Court has maintained a strict yet flexible approach towards the concept of force majeure and frustration of contracts. In the case of Alopi Prashad and Sons vs. UOI[v] the Supreme court had observed that commercial hardship shall not be a just and reasonable ground to support frustration of contract and excuse performance.

As we find in the commercial world, contracting parties have generally been incorporating the force majeure clause in their contracts since ages, to absolve themselves of any liability arising out of events beyond their reasonable control. However, in this discussion we would focus the force majeure arising out of Covid-19 pandemic.


COVID 19 and Application of Force Majeure


There was a difference of opinions and questions were raised over the fact that some contracts though having a force majeure clause, do not stress on the word ‘pandemic’, ‘epidemic’, ‘disease’ etc. , while majority of the contracting parties rely on the general phrase ‘any other unforeseeable event, not under the control of either of the parties.’

Executive Interpretation:

Alike the private sector, the Government contracts and the Public Sector transactions also started suffering on account of the pandemic and declaration of lockdown throughout the country. To address the situation fairly, the Ministry of Home Affairs came out with Notification No. F. 18/4/2020 PPD dated 19-02-2020 with respect to Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 declaring that the interruptions in supply chain due to Covid 19 from China or any other country shall be covered under the ambit of force majeure, and that force majeure shall be invoked whenever considered appropriate following the due process of law.

While the power of the Ministry to bring certain events within the ambit of force majeure under clause 9.7.7 of the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 by a simple notification, may be a different issue, but as it appears, by this notification the Corona Pandemic was brought within the meaning of force majeure as defined in the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 and tacitly, this event certainly becomes applicable in respect of all government and/or public sector contracts irrespective of application of the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017.  It may be noted that this Memorandum of 19th February 2020 was issued prior to Covid-19 affecting operations in India, recognizing the difficulty faced by the contracting parties regarding import of materials from other countries which were impacted by the pandemic.

Similarly, on account of various representations and submissions made by various Renewable Energy (RE) Developers and RE Associations, and considering the prevailing situation, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy vide Office Memorandum No. 283/18/2020-GRID SOLAR dated March 20, 2020 declared Covid-19 as a force majeure event. The Ministry vide the said order granted time extensions in scheduled commissioning date of RE projects, in light of disruption of supply chain due to the pandemic.

The Ministry of Roads Transport and Highways also in its Circular dated 18.05.2020 inter-alia classified the pandemic as a force majeure event. In addition, the Ministry of Home Affairs by its Order no. 40-3/2020(D) dated 24 March 2020 expressed that the country was threatened with the spread of Covid 19 virus and therefore has considered to take effective measures to prevent its spread across the country and therefore in exercise of powers under section 10(2)(I) of the Disasters Management Act 2005 issued various guidelines for immediate implementation. Subsequently, by Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2020 the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure referred to its earlier memorandum dated 19 February 2020 and also referred to the Manual of Procurement and recognized inter-alia that in view of the prevailing restrictions, it may not be possible for the parties to the contract to fulfill contractual obligations. Therefore, after fulfilling due procedure and wherever applicable, parties to the contract could invoke force majeure clause for all construction / works contracts, goods and services contracts, and PPP contracts with Government Agencies up to a certain period and subject to certain conditions. Therefore, officially the Government of India recognized Covid-19 Pandemic as an event of force majeure applicable in relation to contracts with Government Agencies, in effect resulting inclusion of Public Sector Undertakings also.

While the specific acceptance of force majeure in relation to Government sector contracts may not have any binding effect on the contracts outside the scope of the explicit instances or in relation to purely private contracts between two private parties, they probably offered an explanatory value to bring Covid 19 and the forced restraints imposed on account of lockdowns, within the ambit of force majeure.  

Judicial Interpretation:

In the Indian judicial scenario the court would rely on the terms of force majeure clause in the contracts or on principles of frustration under section 56 of the Contract Act. This means, unless there is compelling evidence for non-performance of contract the courts do not favor parties resorting to frustration or termination of contract. On account of the enormous devastative effects the Pandemic created on the commercial and economic environment in the country, different Courts had to come forward and grant relief to different contracting parties who were severely affected by the Pandemic.

The Delhi High Court considered the matter in June 2020 in the case of MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors[vi]. The court essentially relied on the Ministry of Roads Transport and Highways (MORTH) circular and observed that:

27(i) The respondent Corporation itself referred to Circular dated 19.02.2020 which notified that the COVID-19 pandemic was a force majeure occurrence. In effect, the force majeure clause under the agreement immediately becomes applicable and the notice for the same would not be necessary. That being the position, a strict timeline under the agreement would be put in abeyance as the ground realities had substantially altered and performance of the contract would not be feasible till restoration of the pre-force majeure conditions.” 

The court also expounded on the continuous nature of the force majeure event and held that the subsequent lockdown relaxations given by the central government and the state government shall not amount to abatement of the force majeure event, at least in respect to major contracts such as road construction projects. The court also identified the distinct effects of the lockdown, independent of the effects of the pandemic and its implications on various contracts which many be affected by the force majeure conditions.  

In the case of Standard Retail vs G.S Global Corp Pvt. Ltd[vii] steel importers had approached the Bombay High Court seeking restraint on encashment of letters of credit provided to Korean exporters in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown declared by the Central/State Government citing that the contracts between the parties were unenforceable on account of frustration, impossibility, and impracticability. The Bombay High court by its order dated 8 April 2020 rejected the plea inter-alia on the grounds: 

  1. The Letters of Credit are an independent transaction with the Bank and the Bank is not concerned with underlying disputes between the buyers and the sellers.
  2. The Force Majeure clause in the present contracts is applicable only to one respondent and cannot come to the aid of the Petitioners.
  3. The contract terms are on Cost and Freight basis (CFR) and the respondent had complied with its obligations and performed its part of the contracts and the goods had already been shipped from South Korea. The fact that the Petitioners would not be able to perform its obligations so far as its own purchasers are concerned and/or it would suffer damages, is not a factor which can be considered and held against the Respondent.

The court also observed that:  

“The Notifications/Advisories relied upon by the respondent suggested that the distribution of steel has been declared as an essential service. There are no restrictions on its movement and all ports and port related activities including the movement of vehicles and manpower, operations of Container Freight Station and warehouses and offices of Custom Houses Agents have also been declared as essential services. The Notification of the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai, states that there would be no container detention charges on import and export shipments during the lockdown period.

In any event, the lockdown would be for a limited period and the lockdown cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioners so as to resile from its contractual obligations with the Respondent No. 1 of making payments”.

Therefore, even if the event is a force majeure, contracts may not be avoided if the event does not affect performance of the entire contract or affect every aspects of any contract. The event has to be specific to the failure.

In the Halliburton case[viii] , decided on May 29, 2020, the Delhi High court was of an unequivocal opinion that:

“62. The question as to whether COVID-19 would justify non-performance or breach of a contract has to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Every breach or non-performance cannot be justified or excused merely on the invocation of COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition. The Court would have to assess the conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak, the deadlines that were imposed in the contract, the steps that were to be taken, the various compliances that were required to be made and only then assess as to whether, genuinely, a party was prevented or is able to justify its non- performance due to the epidemic/pandemic”.

Further, while discussing the scope of the force majeure clause in contracts it was observed by the court that:

“Para 63. It is the settled position in law that a Force Majeure clause is to be interpreted narrowly and not broadly. Parties ought to be compelled to adhere to contractual terms and conditions and excusing non-performance would be only in exceptional situations. As observed in Energy Watchdog it is not in the domain of Courts to absolve parties from performing their part of the contract. It is also not the duty of Courts to provide a shelter for justifying non- performance. There has to be a ‘real reason’ and a ‘real justification’ which the Court would consider in order to invoke a Force Majeure clause”.

The Madras High Court in the case of Tuticorin Stevedores’ Association vs The Government of India[ix], dated 14 September 2020, observed that the question as to whether on account of the pandemic outbreak of Covid-19, the parties can invoke the principle of force majeure need not detain us. The calamitous impact and disruption caused by Covid-19 on the economic front has been recognized by the Government itself.

In Confederation for Concessionaire Welfare & Ors. vs Airports Authority of India & Anr[x] the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed on 17 February 2021 inter-alia that the court has perused the clauses relating to Force Majeure. There can be no doubt that the pandemic is a force majeure event. Since the Petitioners wish to terminate/exit from their respective agreements, while directing completion of pleadings and while the issues are under examination by this Court, there is a need to reduce the risk to both parties as simply postponing the exit by the Petitioners would also make it impossible for the AAI to re-allot the spaces to willing concessionaires and the outstanding against the Petitioners would continue to mount. Accordingly, as an interim measure the Hon’ble Court directed certain processes to be followed.

In another case of Ramanand vs. Dr. Girish Soni RC.[xi], an application came under consideration of the Delhi High Court which raised various issues relating to suspension of payment of rent by tenants owing to the COVID-19 lockdown crisis and the legal questions surrounding the same. By order dated 21-5-2020 the Delhi High court while determining whether lease agreements are covered under the ambit of section 32 and section 56 of the Act and even though it was held that suspension of rent on the grounds of force majeure is not permissible under the circumstances, the court allowed relaxation in the schedule of payment of the outstanding rent owing to the lockdown.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parvasi Legal Cell and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors., observed that the pandemic was an ‘unusual’ situation, that had impacted the economy globally. This case revolved around the liability of the airlines to compensate passengers who faced cancellation of flights due to government-imposed lockdowns and restrictions on inter-state and international travels. The court relied on the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 16th April 2020 to dispose of the petition.

In the case of Transcon Iconia Pvt. Ltd v ICICI Bank[xii], the Bombay High Court while determining whether moratorium period would be excluded for NPA classification observed inter alia as under:

‘38… the period of the moratorium during which there is a lockdown will not be reckoned by ICICI Bank for the purposes of computation of the 90-day NPA declaration period. As currently advised, therefore, the period of 1st March 2020 until 31st May 2020 during which there is a lockdown will stand excluded from the 90-day NPA declaration computation until — and this is the condition — the lockdown is lifted’.

Yet, in another judgment passed in R. Narayan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[xiii] the Madras High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to waive the license fee for running a shop at a bus stand, and observed that:

“…this Court would be justified in treating the “lock down” as a force majeure event which will relieve the licensee from performing his obligation to the corresponding extent.” The Court also observed that … “The respondents (The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.) themselves have chosen to treat the lock down restrictions as a force majeure event. But they have relieved the licensees from the obligation to pay the fees only for two months. The reason for granting waiver for the months of April and May would equally hold good for the entire “total lockdown” period.”

Therefore, as it appears, most of the High Courts relied on the government orders that classified pandemic as force majeure, although the relief granted in each case has been subjected to restraint based on the accompanying facts and circumstances. The common observation however remained that the Covid-19 pandemic is a force majeure event.


Key Takeaways


Hence, it can be summarized that, commercial hardship shall not be a just and reasonable ground to support frustration of contract and excuse performance. The Courts have no general inclination to absolve a party from the performance of its part of the contract merely because its performance has become onerous on account of an unforeseen turn of events. Parties are at an obligation to complete their part of the contract against all odds, within a reasonable and practical limit. However, where the contract itself either impliedly or expressly contains a term according to which performance would stand discharged under certain circumstances, the dissolution of the contract would take place under the terms of the contract itself and such cases would be dealt with under Section 32 of the Act. If, however, frustration is to take place de hors the contract, it will be governed by Section 56.

The following preliminary conditions are emerging to be sine quo non to invoke covid-19 as a valid defense for non-performance:

  1. The contract is rendered impossible to perform: To establish pandemic as a force majeure occurrence de hors the contract the parties must demonstrate how the pandemic has disturbed the fundamental basis on which the obligations and agreements of the parties rested [Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. Vs Khayaliram Jagannath[xiv]]. This principle was also adequately elaborated upon by the Bombay High Court in Standard Retail vs G.S Global Corp Pvt. Ltd. A mere invocation of the force majeure clause in light of the pandemic does not absolve the parties from discharging their contractual obligations. A prima facie case has to be built justifying the reason for inability and seeking such an exemption.
  1. Prior conduct of the parties: While pleading the defense of force majeure, it is highly pertinent for the concerned party to ensure that, prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, the party was discharging its functions in a bona fide manner within the stipulated conditions of the contract. Additionally, as enumerated in the Halliburton case by the Delhi High Court, the concerned party should have demonstrated a bona fide attempt at undertaking all reasonable measures to execute its obligations in light of the situation and was genuinely prevented to act upon the same due to the collateral effects of the pandemic.
  1. Collection of documents capable of corroborating the claim of force majeure: It is crucial for the party invoking the force majeure clause to corroborate their claims with valid documents applicable to the specific instance, given the unusual and unprecedented situation. In the present scenario, these documents can include the abovementioned government circulars and guidelines, local medical reports, news reports, announcements etc. It needs to be kept in mind that generic documents howsoever crucial they may be, might not be enough in any specific case. While citing such documents, the affected party also has a duty to carry out a due diligence to ensure such exemptions and relaxations are strictly applicable to their case as observed in Standard Retail vs G.S Global Corp Pvt. Ltd.


No Straitjacket Formula                     


As can be summarized, different Courts in India have upheld the defense of frustration of contract and the defense of force majeure sparingly in every case. Even though the Covid 19 pandemic and its consequent lockdown can be generally covered under the ambit of force majeure, but there can’t be any straitjacket formula and its invocation strictly and solely shall depend upon the facts of each case, previous conduct of the parties and the prevailing circumstances in the specific scenario. If there are alternate modes of performing contractual obligations, the liable party shall not have the luxury to hide behind the comfort of doctrine of frustration or the doctrine of force majeure and absolve themselves of their duties. Accordingly, it would need a very careful examination of the whole situation before any ground is taken for avoidance of obligations under a concluded contract.


[i] (1915) 1 K.B. 681

[ii] (1920) 2 K.B. 714

[iii] [1954 SCR 310]

[iv] [(2017)14 SCC 18].

[v] [1960 (2) SCR 793]

[vi] W.P.(C) 2241/2020

[vii] Commercial Arbitration Petition (l) no. 404 of 2020

[viii] Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020 & I.As. 3696-3697/2020

[ix] WP(MD)No.6818 of 2020 and WMP(MD)No.6217 of 2020

[x] W.P.(C) 2204/2021 & CM APPL.6421-22/202

[xi] REV447/2017

[xii] 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 626

[xiii] Case No.19596 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16318 & 16320 of 2020

[xiv] AIR 1968 SC 552

Image Credits: Photo by Medienstürmer on Unsplash

The Courts have no general inclination to absolve a party from the performance of its part of the contract merely because its performance has become onerous on account of an unforeseen turn of events. Parties are at an obligation to complete their part of the contract against all odds, within a reasonable and practical limit.


Undue delay in passing Arbitral Award in violation of Public Policy?

A clause for Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) is incorporated in a contract to ensure avoidance of lengthy and costly legal procedures. Undue delay in arbitration procedure tends to vitiate this essential objective that ADR seeks to achieve.  Further, the ADR process is designed to minimize the interference of courts, however, it is more of fiction as parties unhappy with the outcome of the process take the legal recourse as a dilatory tactic. Therefore, it is essential that arbitral awards are set aside only when there is a grave injustice or is unreasonable on the face of it[I].


Some light was shed on the issue recently by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mr. K. Dhanasekar v Union of India and Ors[ii]. The court set aside an arbitral award on an application made to it under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 holding that undue and/or inordinate delays in passing an award are in fact violative of public policy.


Factual Matrix:


The Petitioner, an engineering contractor, entered into an agreement with the Respondent, Southern Railways, for the collection and supply of 50 mm size machine crushed hard granite ballast for railway track doubling purposes. Certain disputes arose between the parties, and in accordance with the provisions of the contract which provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration, an arbitral tribunal consisting of three arbitrators was constituted. The learned arbitral tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimant in its entirety and allowed the counterclaim of the respondent. Challenging the same, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court.

The Petitioner, inter alia, contended that there was a severe delay in passing the award. The arbitral tribunal passed the impugned award after a period of 3 years and 7 months which was not a reasonable time period. The Respondent countered that the learned arbitral tribunal, upon hearing the parties at length and upon consideration of all facts and circumstances, had passed the impugned award. Further, the delay in passing the award had not caused any prejudice to anyone and therefore, the award must not be set aside.




Whether inordinate delays in passing an arbitral award was sufficient cause to set aside the impugned award.




The Hon’ble Court observed that the fact that there were delays in passing the impugned award was not disputed. What was disputed was whether such delay warranted the interference of the Hon’ble Court in setting aside the award.

To answer the question, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited[iii], wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that an arbitrator was required to make and publish an award within a reasonable period of time, and in the event that there is a delay, the same had to be adequately explained. The lack of any satisfactory explanation to such delays would be prejudicial to the interests of the parties. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that the parties to an arbitration agreement had the right to be satisfied that the arbitrator was conscious of and had taken into consideration all contentions and claims before adjudicating on the claim. An inordinate delay from the last date of hearing would not provide such satisfaction to the parties.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, adopting the same rationale found that arbitrators are likely to forget the contentions and pleas raised by parties during the course of arguments. Further, unexplained delay in passing an arbitral award was violative of the public policy of India and therefore liable to be set aside.  




The Hon’ble High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the arbitrators must have forgotten the arguments placed by the parties, despite the fact that written submissions were placed on record by each party. Additionally, Section 29A introduced by the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 (further amended in 2019) has prescribed a time limit of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, within which period, the Arbitrator must necessarily make the award.  Although the amendment is not applicable to the case at hand (Consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors[iv] on the retrospective application of the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015), however, a similar case today would reach the same fate because of these set timelines. The said decision, as well as the amending provision, have the tendency of acting as a tool for the losing party to have the arbitral award set aside on procedural ground rather than on merits. These also increase the interference of the court which might result in unnecessary delays which the amending provision or the decision basically condemns. Further, with the 12 month or 18 months limit (if extended by the parties), the delay might not happen in ADR proceedings but may happen in the legal proceedings which the parties seek to avoid by opting for the ADR mechanism in the first place. In addition, court interference or dependence would hamper the confidentiality that parties seek to achieve through the ADR process. This is violative of the sanctity of arbitral awards and goes against the very fabric of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself.

Finally, the Arbitration Council being set up through the 2019 amendment, to undertake necessary measures to promote and encourage the ADR mechanism and to frame policy and guidelines for uniform professional standards, must take cognizance of this. Although provisions for penalizing arbitrators have not been provided in the amendment, the Arbitration Council should consider making regulations on the same to ensure compliance. This might provide an impetus to the overall arbitration process and ensure timely resolution in a fair and equitable manner while avoiding the interference of the court.



[i] Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Saw Pipes Ltd., [2003 (5) SCC 705]

[ii] O.P. No. 4 of 2015 and O.A. No. 31 of 2015 at

[iii] [2009 (107) DRJ 213]

[iv] (SLP (C.) No. 19545-19546 of 2016)



Image Credits: Photo by Aron Visuals on Unsplash

The Hon’ble High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the arbitrators must have forgotten the arguments placed by the parties, despite the fact that written submissions were placed on record by each party. Additionally, Section 29A introduced by the Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 (further amended in 2019) has prescribed a time limit of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, within which period, the Arbitrator must necessarily make the award.