Mathanki Narayanan Sections 34 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provide for applications for the setting aside of arbitral awards and conditions for enforcement of foreign awards respectively; one of the grounds (for challenging the award or its enforcement) mentioned in both sections is that of public policy. The views of the Indian judiciary on the public policy exception have typically oscillated from a narrow interpretation to a broad one. Many cases s

Tariq Khan, Nakashvir Singh Aulakh Introduction Party autonomy is the single most important aspect of arbitration. It is the fact that the parties can choose the mode, medium, and governing law which makes arbitration the most preferred form of dispute resolution mechanism in recent years. The Supreme Court of India, time and again, has upheld party autonomy in arbitration and has even called it to be the backbone of arbitration. However, there have been various conflicting

Radhika Shukla Introduction The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 ('the Act') is another one of India’s step towards developing a pro arbitration regime along with an attempt to promote institutional arbitration in India. However, much before this comes the gap that exists in the domestic arbitration regime with regard to arbitrability of lease disputes and the problems posed by conflicting decision in this matter. The determination of arbitrability of disput

Dr. Ananya Pratap Singh* The expression ‘public policy’ is a ground for resisting both foreign and domestic awards under Section 48(2)(b) and Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Indian Arbitration Act’). At the inception of the Indian jurisprudence, public policy in respect of foreign award was interpreted to inter alia include ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’ besides the interests of India and justice or morality. However, later while interpr