Judicial Pronouncements

Tata Sons v. The Advanced Information Technology Association

Landmark cases such as Tata Sons v. The Advanced Information Technology Association and Maruti Udyog Limited v. Maruti Software Pvt. Ltd.[39] Wherein WIPO, the Arbitration and Mediation center was made the medium to solve the Domain name dispute.

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai

In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai Supreme Court held that video-conferencing could be resorted to for taking evidence of witnesses by stating that recording of evidence satisfies the object of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused.

Trimex

In Trimex, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the online arbitration agreement is the most important document of arbitration and since parties do not meet personally but rather virtually, it is pertinent that the agreement clearly defines all particulars of dispute resolution mechanism. There must be meeting of minds and the agreement must be according to Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Shakti Bhog Food Ltd. v. kola Shipping Ltd

In Shakti Bhog Food Ltd. v. kola Shipping Ltd., communication and acceptance by telex, telegram and other mode of communication has been accepted as valid mode of communication.

The Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. Case (2002):

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the enforceability of foreign arbitration awards, even before the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ruled that parties could approach Indian courts for interim relief in relation to foreign-seated arbitrations.

The BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services Case (2012):

This case clarified the position of the Indian courts regarding the seat of arbitration. The Supreme Court held that the seat of arbitration determines the curial law applicable to the arbitration proceedings, emphasizing the importance of party autonomy in selecting the seat.

The Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Limited Case (2006):

The Supreme Court of India highlighted the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings. It emphasized that courts should refrain from interfering with arbitration awards unless there are grave irregularities or violations of public policy.

The UNCITRAL Model Law and New York Convention:

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards have been influential in shaping the global landscape of arbitration and mediation. These international instruments provide a framework for the enforcement of arbitral awards across jurisdictions.

The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation v. Saw Pipes Case (2003):

This case clarified the distinction between seat and venue in arbitration. The Supreme Court of India held that the choice of a particular venue for conducting arbitration does not automatically confer the seat of arbitration on that location.

The Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India Case (2012):

This case highlighted the significance of alternative dispute resolution methods such as conciliation. The Supreme Court of India encouraged parties to explore settlement through conciliation before resorting to litigation, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolution of disputes.

The Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar Case (2019):

In this case, the Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of mediation in resolving matrimonial disputes. The court highlighted that mediation provides an opportunity for parties to actively participate in the decision-making process and arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.

These judicial pronouncements and judgments have played a significant role in shaping the legal landscape of ADR and mediation. They have clarified important aspects such as the enforceability of arbitration awards, the role of courts in supporting ADR, and the importance of party autonomy and amicable dispute resolution. These rulings continue to guide and influence ADR practices in their respective jurisdictions.