Need to have trained pool of arbitrators: CJ Ujjal Bhuyan
Hyderabad: Chief Justice of the High Court of Telangana Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday said the judiciary was overburdened and arbitration was not the only alternative to dispute resolution and that there are other mechanisms to resolve disputes including mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat etc. He also highlighted the dispute resolution mechanism under the MSMED Act, […]
Hyderabad: Chief Justice of the High Court of Telangana Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday said the judiciary was overburdened and arbitration was not the only alternative to dispute resolution and that there are other mechanisms to resolve disputes including mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat etc.
He also highlighted the dispute resolution mechanism under the MSMED Act, 2006 and discussed a few provisions of the Commercial Courts Act to state that mediation and conciliation have been recognized by statutes.
He was speaking at a chat hosted by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad in association with Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Hyderabad here.
In his address, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said: “Disputes are inevitable in business. Legal system must provide for an effective and assured speedy resolution of disputes. There must be certainty in the legal framework, in other words business or industry will look for a scenario where there is certainty in the laws. It cannot happen that based on the existing laws of today, a foreign investor invests in India and five years later another law is brought in which adversely affects the interest of the investor and is given retrospective effect. This is outside the scope of the judiciary but is a very important aspect.”
He said if given a choice, a party will choose to approach an Indian court over a court in another neighboring country. “Arbitration has now become the established and recognized mode of dispute resolution because of its widespread use and acceptability in the commercial world.”
He said arbitration was successful as once the dispute was referred to arbitration it is out of the court system unlike other modes of ADR which come back to the court again. However, he said that the grievance against arbitration is that it has become expensive, and it has taken character of a court proceeding.
He also said the Arbitral Award was not enough, it is just the beginning therefore, awareness was required. Also, most arbitrations in India were done by retired judicial officers and judges of the court.
He said that there was a need to have a trained pool of arbitrators who can handle specialized matters.
He also discussed how mediation is an informal process and there are places where mediation and arbitration go hand in hand, and also explore that as it is not the case that they are exclusive to each other.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that in most arbitral matters, it was the government that was the litigant. “The government is a zealous believer in exhausting all avenues of appeal before accepting the finality of any decision,” he said, suggesting that at the stage of rendering of the final award a mediated discussion may be held between the parties to assess their joint satisfaction and limit any further appeals.
