Appeal Against the Order of the Chief Justice Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: An Empirical Analysis
Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 21-40, 2012
28 Pages Posted: 12 Feb 2014 Last revised: 17 Feb 2014
Date Written: September 27, 2012
In SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Co., a seven judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court from an order of the Chief Justice of the High Court or his designate passed under § 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court was of the view that its decision to make the order of the Chief Justice or his designate final but subject to appeal by special leave under Article 136 would aid in the quick disposal of the arbitration claims and avoid delay. The purpose of this paper is to examine the merit of the said view primarily using data derived from the reported decisions of the Supreme Court subsequent to SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Co. where special leave was granted. The figures indicate weakness in the entire process of appeal. Considering that the appeal procedure is a part of the process of appointment of arbitrators, the above figures are indicative of the weakness of the entire process of appointment. If India aspires to have an efficient system of arbitration, the process of constitution of the arbitral tribunal should be revamped comprehensively (data set is not a part of the original publication althogh the link to the same was provided at footnote 25).
Keywords: arbitration, India, Chief Justice, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, appointment of arbitrator, arbitral tribunal, SBP & Co v. Patel Engineering
JEL Classification: K10, K30, K33, K39, K41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation