Abstract

According to Halsbury, arbitration is the referral of a disagreement or difference between at least two parties for resolution by a person or individuals other than a court with competent jurisdiction, after hearing both sides in a judicial fashion. Due to the large number of cases pending before the Indian Judiciary, the reliance of people on alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India is increasing. In order to keep away from the undue delay of courts, out of court settlement options are the most viable means to secure quick redressal of disputes. The Indian Arbitration Act of 1996 covers the legal aspects of domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and the enforcement of foreign arbitral judgments. Indian courts have used provisions of the Act to ignore contradictory contractual terms and establish their own authority in order to enact temporary measures and set aside arbitral judgments. . Foreign investors in India's construction, energy, and other industries have long been concerned about the Indian judiciary's proclivity to intervene in international arbitration processes. In Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, Inc., India's Supreme Court rejected previous judgments that authorized this interventionist policy, which is a positive move. The purpose of this article is to examine the jurisdiction of judicial intervention prior to and after the BALCO case.

Keywords