Abstract

Arbitration stands apart from other forms of dispute resolution in that arbitral decisions are final and binding. However, the Act on Arbitration and Conciliation entitles a court to rebound an award for any of the justifications it lists. It is relevant due to Section 34 of the Act details the procedure to be followed in order to vacate a verdict proferred by the arbitral tribunal, including the assistance of the Court in setting aside the decision. While the participation of the courts is essential to the operation of the arbitration system, the courts should refrain from taking too active a role in reviewing challenges to arbitration awards. It would be antithetical to the spirit of the Act and only serve to prolong the process if this were to happen. Court involvement in arbitration proceedings is possible because the phrase “public policy of India” is not portrayed in the 1940 Act of Arbitration. Moreover, because the criteria for nullifying an award are not stated, the courts are free to use their own standards in ruling on the case. “The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of 2015 gave Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 the force of law and addressed a number of issues that had developed in its wake. This article analyzes the scope of judicial involvement and how Section 34 of the revised 1996 Act is implemented. In addition, the definition of” “public policy of India” “has been dissected, along with the revisions introduced by the Amendment Act of 2015.”

Keywords