Emergency Arbitrators

Court has referred to party autonomy as being one pillar for Arbitration [Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228; PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 331]. A full party autonomy is given by Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided by Rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators.

By agreeing to application of SIAC Rules, Arbitral Proceedings, at present, can be said to have commenced from date of receipt of a complete notice of Arbitration by Registrar of SIAC. This would indicate Arbitral Proceedings under SIAC Rules commence much before constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal and do encompass Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings.

A party cannot be heard to say, after it participates in an Emergency Award Proceeding, it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s Ruling. It bears no stamp of invalidity on its forehead [Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363; Anita International v. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh, (2016) 9 SCC 44]. Even if later set aside, for period of its subsistence it must be obeyed [Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443].

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Amazon v. Future Retail Limited, [Civil Appeal Nos. 4492-4493 of 2021].