Eshita Bhasin, LLM, Corporate and Commercial Law, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
From the inception of the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanism in India, the development, transformation, and modernization of the Arbitration Laws has proceeded with to ease the burden on the Indian Judiciary and provide expedient justice. The of ADR—an entirely separate mechanism of dispute redressal—has been to keep the Indian Courts isolated (minimally involved) under this branch of legal justice disposal. This refrainment by the judiciary (Indian Courts) from intervening in the proceedings of an Arbitral Tribunal or Conciliation session has been embodied explicitly under the arbitration laws of India. Nevertheless, the Arbitration Law of the land provides for certain limited criteria where the Judiciary can interfere the realm of arbitration. One such factor that empowers the Indian Courts to adjudicate w.r.t Arbitration and Arbitral Proceedings is the segment of challenging the Arbitral Awards. This act of challenging the Arbitral Awards, which is explicitly codified, provides for a ground of ‘public policy’ to challenge the legality and validity of the Arbitral Award. The ground of public policy as a concept, impeding the legality, validity, and sanction of the Arbitral Award, has been propounded by the Geneva Convention of 1927, the New York Convention of 1958, as also the UNCITRAL Model Laws of 1985.
