Bombay High Court’s New Rules on Arbitral Tribunal Fees

The provisions for appointment of an arbitrator, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), underwent a sea change with the 2015 amendments. A notable amendment was in relation to setting fees for arbitrators appointed by a court under the Act, for the purpose of which, the new Section 11 (14) and Fourth Schedule were introduced.

Under these provisions and for the purpose of determination of the fees of the arbitral tribunal and the manner of their payment, the High Court was empowered to frame such rules as may be necessary, after taking into consideration the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule.

Years after the amendments kicked in (on and from October 23, 2015), the Bombay High Court issued the Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018, pursuant to Section 11 (14) and the Fourth Schedule (the Rules).[1]
Continue Reading

Court of Arbitration for Art - CAFA II

For Art’s Sake: The Court of Arbitration for Art – Part I looked at the history of art disputes and the introduction of the Court of Arbitration for Art and how it solves the issues of adjudication faced in art disputes.

Part – II elaborates on the Procedure that will be followed by the Court of Arbitration for Art and what this development means for the Indian art industry.

How CAfA helps

It is essential in cases involving art disputes that there is a regime to govern and decide the disputes that may arise in the course of such sale purchases, mainly concerning the authenticity of the artworks, their valuation, instances of art fraud, cases of stolen art, chain of title disputes, contract, as well as copyright issues. Although, “art” in the broad sense of the term includes music, film, theatre, literature, et cetera, the scope of CafA is likely to adjudicate on disputes regarding fine arts and/or visual arts.
Continue Reading

Seat Venue Place Order - Supreme Court of India

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc[1]. The much-anticipated decision attempts to provide clarity on the venue-seat conundrum in arbitration cases — cases where an arbitration agreement fails to specify the ‘seat’ of an arbitration but does specify a ‘venue’.
Continue Reading