Newsletter/Booklets 26th Nov 2021
Dear Reader
In this week’s arbitration update, Economic Laws Practice (ELP)’s dispute resolution team analyzes an interesting issue pertaining to s. 9(1) and s. 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent decision of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment, 2015, amended s. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Ac”), and divided the erstwhile provision into three sub-sections, which are in line with the objective of the Arbitration Act – that of providing timely and speedy resolution of disputes with minimal interference from courts. However, the interplay between s. 9(1) and s. 9(3) became an issue before courts in cases where petitions under s. 9(1) had been filed prior to the initiation of arbitration. Such cases raised a legal conundrum on whether a court can ‘entertain’ a pending petition under s. 9(1) after the subsequent constitution of an arbitral tribunal in view of s. 9(3), or whether the court will become non coram judice as soon as the arbitral tribunal is constituted and a pending petition under s. 9(1) would have to be transferred by the court to the arbitral tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court untied this Gordon knot in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.