Procedural Aspects of Arbitration in India

October 7, 2025 Chandni Joshi Arbitration Law

Table of Contents

Introduction

Arbitration has emerged as one of the most preferred mechanisms for dispute resolution in India, offering parties an alternative to traditional litigation. The procedural framework governing arbitration in India is primarily regulated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This legislation was introduced to provide a comprehensive statutory framework that balances party autonomy with judicial oversight, ensuring that arbitration remains an efficient, time-bound, and effective method of resolving disputes.

The procedural aspects of arbitration are critical to understanding how disputes are initiated, managed, and resolved through this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. These procedures encompass various stages, from the commencement of arbitration proceedings to the granting of interim relief, the conduct of hearings, and the adherence to specific timelines designed to expedite the resolution process. Over the years, the Act has undergone several amendments, most notably in 2015, 2019, and 2021, with the objective of making arbitration more user-friendly, reducing judicial intervention, and addressing concerns about delays that had previously plagued the arbitration process in India.

This article examines the key procedural aspects of arbitration under Indian law, including the mechanism for commencing arbitration, the availability of interim measures from both courts and arbitral tribunals, the conduct of hearings and proceedings, and the fast-track procedures that have been introduced to ensure speedy dispute resolution. Each of these aspects is supported by relevant statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements that have shaped the contemporary understanding and application of arbitration law in India.

Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings

The initiation of arbitration proceedings is a crucial procedural step that determines when the arbitration process formally begins. Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the commencement of arbitration and provides clarity on this important aspect. According to this provision, arbitration proceedings are deemed to commence on the date on which a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. This statutory provision establishes a clear timeline for the commencement of proceedings, which has significant implications for various purposes, including the computation of limitation periods and the determination of when certain procedural rights and obligations come into effect.

The significance of determining the exact date of commencement was highlighted in the landmark judgment of M/s Chatterjee Petrochem Company India Private Limited versus Haldia Petrochemicals Limited [1]. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the date of commencement of arbitration is not necessarily the date on which the arbitrator is appointed, but rather the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. This interpretation ensures that parties cannot delay the commencement of arbitration by postponing the appointment of arbitrators, and it provides certainty regarding when the arbitration process has been set in motion.

The practical implications of this provision are substantial. For instance, in cases where limitation periods are approaching their expiry, a party can effectively preserve its rights by sending a request for arbitration to the respondent, thereby commencing the arbitration proceedings and preventing the claim from becoming time-barred. The request for arbitration need not be in any particular form, but it must clearly indicate the intention to refer the dispute to arbitration and should contain sufficient details about the nature of the dispute and the relief sought.

It is important to note that the commencement of arbitration under Section 21 is distinct from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. While arbitration proceedings commence when the request is received by the respondent, the arbitral tribunal is considered to be constituted at a later stage, when the sole arbitrator or the panel of arbitrators has been appointed and has accepted the appointment. This distinction becomes particularly relevant when considering the timelines prescribed under Section 29A of the Act, which requires that arbitral awards be made within twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.

Interim Relief: Dual Framework of Court and Arbitrator

One of the distinguishing features of arbitration law in India is the availability of interim measures from two sources: the courts under Section 9 of the Act and the arbitral tribunal under Section 17. This dual framework ensures that parties have adequate protection during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and can obtain urgent relief when necessary to preserve their rights or prevent irreparable harm.

Interim Measures by Courts

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act empowers courts to grant interim measures of protection before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced. The provision allows a party to approach the court for various forms of interim relief, including the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind, the preservation or interim custody of goods that are the subject matter of the dispute, securing the amount in dispute, or any other interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient.

The scope and application of Section 9 have been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation. Prior to the 2015 amendment, there was considerable debate about whether parties could approach courts for interim relief after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The 2015 amendment introduced clarification to Section 9, providing that once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the court shall entertain an application for interim measures only in certain circumstances, particularly where the remedy provided by the tribunal is found to be inefficacious.

This position was further elaborated by the Supreme Court in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited versus Essar Bulk Terminal Limited [2]. The Court held that subsequent to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, courts would not consider or apply their judicial mind to any application for interim relief under Section 9 unless and until it is established that the remedy available from the arbitral tribunal is inefficacious. This judgment effectively established a principle of tribunal primacy, whereby parties are expected to approach the arbitral tribunal for interim relief once it has been constituted, and resort to courts should be limited to exceptional circumstances where the tribunal’s remedies prove inadequate.

The rationale behind this approach is to minimize judicial intervention in the arbitration process and to respect the competence of arbitral tribunals to manage their own proceedings, including the granting of interim measures. However, the provision recognizes that there may be situations where immediate court intervention is necessary, particularly in cases of extreme urgency where waiting for the constitution of the tribunal could result in irreparable harm to one of the parties.

Interim Measures by Arbitral Tribunal

Section 17 of the Act empowers the arbitral tribunal to order interim measures of protection during the pendency of arbitral proceedings. The 2015 amendment significantly enhanced the effectiveness of Section 17 by providing that such interim orders passed by the arbitral tribunal are enforceable in the same manner as if they were orders of the court. This amendment addressed a significant lacuna in the earlier framework, where interim orders passed by arbitral tribunals often lacked effective enforcement mechanisms, leading parties to approach courts under Section 9 instead.

The Supreme Court in Alka Chandewar versus Shamshul Ishrar Khan [3] held that an order passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 would be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were an order of the court. This judgment reinforced the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment and established that parties can effectively enforce interim orders passed by arbitral tribunals through the court’s execution machinery.

The practical implications of this development are significant. Arbitral tribunals can now grant meaningful interim relief, including orders for attachment of property, injunctions, appointment of receivers, and other measures necessary to protect the rights of parties during the pendency of arbitration. The enforceability of such orders ensures that they are not merely advisory in nature but carry the same weight and consequences as court orders.

The dual framework of interim relief under Sections 9 and 17 reflects a careful balance between party autonomy and the need for effective remedies. While the primary responsibility for granting interim measures rests with the arbitral tribunal once it is constituted, courts retain residual jurisdiction to intervene in exceptional circumstances where the tribunal’s remedies prove inadequate or where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.

Conduct of Hearings and Proceedings

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides considerable flexibility to arbitral tribunals in conducting hearings and proceedings. This flexibility is rooted in the principle of party autonomy, which is a cornerstone of arbitration law. Section 24 of the Act outlines the framework for the conduct of hearings and specifically provides that parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate, subject to the provisions of the Act.

This flexibility allows arbitral tribunals to tailor their procedures to suit the specific nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issues involved, and the preferences of the parties. Unlike court proceedings, which are governed by rigid procedural rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, arbitration proceedings can be adapted to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. Tribunals have the discretion to determine various aspects of the proceedings, including the number of hearings required, the order in which issues will be addressed, the manner of examining witnesses, and the procedure for submission of documentary evidence.

However, this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within certain constraints. The Supreme Court in M/s Lion Engineering Consultants versus State of Madhya Pradesh [4] held that while an arbitral tribunal has wide discretion in conducting proceedings and can adopt any procedure which is fair and reasonable, such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of natural justice and due process. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to present one’s case, are fundamental requirements that cannot be compromised even in the name of procedural flexibility.

The judgment in Lion Engineering Consultants establishes important guardrails for the conduct of arbitral proceedings. While tribunals have considerable latitude in determining procedural matters, they must ensure that both parties are given adequate opportunity to present their case, that there is equality of treatment, and that the proceedings are conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Any procedural orders or decisions that violate these fundamental principles could potentially be grounds for challenging the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act.

The Act also recognizes the importance of written submissions and oral hearings in arbitration proceedings. Section 24 specifically provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings or whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other materials. However, the tribunal is required to hold oral hearings at an appropriate stage of the proceedings if a party so requests. This provision balances efficiency with the parties’ right to present their case orally, ensuring that neither party is denied the opportunity to be heard in person if they consider it necessary.

Fast Track Procedure and Timelines

Recognizing the need for expeditious resolution of disputes, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act introduced provisions for a fast track procedure and prescribed specific timelines for the completion of arbitral proceedings. These provisions represent a significant shift toward making arbitration a truly time-bound process, addressing one of the major criticisms that had been leveled against arbitration in India.

Fast Track Procedure

Section 29B of the Act introduces a fast track procedure that parties can opt for if they wish to have their disputes resolved on an accelerated basis. Under this provision, parties can agree to have their disputes resolved through a fast track procedure, under which the arbitral tribunal is required to decide the dispute on the basis of written pleadings, documents, and submissions filed by the parties, without any oral hearing. The arbitral award in such cases is required to be made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.

The fast track procedure is designed for disputes where the parties are willing to forgo oral hearings and are confident that their case can be adequately presented through written submissions. This procedure can result in significant time and cost savings, making arbitration even more attractive as an alternative to litigation. However, the provision also recognizes that there may be circumstances where oral hearings are necessary. Accordingly, Section 29B provides that the arbitral tribunal may, if it considers it necessary, hold oral hearings for the examination of witnesses or for oral arguments.

The Delhi High Court in M/s Jindal ITF Limited versus NTPC Limited [5] held that parties can opt for the fast track procedure even after the commencement of arbitration proceedings, provided they do so with mutual consent and without prejudice to their rights or claims. This judgment clarifies that the fast track procedure is not limited to cases where parties agree to it at the time of entering into the arbitration agreement but can be adopted at any stage of the proceedings if both parties consent to it.

The fast track procedure represents an important innovation in Indian arbitration law and aligns with international best practices. It provides parties with a genuine alternative for expeditious dispute resolution and demonstrates the legislature’s commitment to making arbitration a more efficient process. However, it is important to note that the fast track procedure may not be suitable for all types of disputes, particularly complex commercial disputes involving voluminous documentation or technical issues that require detailed examination and oral testimony.

Timelines for Arbitral Awards

One of the most significant reforms introduced through the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was the prescription of mandatory timelines for the making of arbitral awards. Section 29A of the Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall make its award within a period of twelve months from the date it enters upon the reference. This period can be extended by a further six months with the consent of the parties. If the award is not made within this extended period, the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate unless the court extends the period or the parties otherwise agree.

These timelines represent a paradigm shift in the arbitration landscape in India. Prior to the introduction of Section 29A, there were no statutory timelines for the completion of arbitration proceedings, which often resulted in arbitrations dragging on for several years, defeating the very purpose of choosing arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The introduction of mandatory timelines was intended to instill discipline in the arbitration process and ensure that awards are made within a reasonable timeframe.

The Supreme Court in Haryana Space Application Centre versus M/s Pan India Consultants Private Limited [6] addressed the consequences of failure to make an award within the prescribed timelines. The Court held that if an award is not made within six months from entering upon reference or within the extended period under the proviso to Section 29A(1), then the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate unless the court has extended the period or the parties have otherwise agreed before or after the expiry of the period as specified under the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 29A.

This judgment emphasizes the seriousness with which courts view the timelines prescribed under Section 29A. The automatic termination of the arbitrator’s mandate upon failure to make an award within the prescribed time serves as a strong incentive for arbitrators to conduct proceedings efficiently and expeditiously. However, the provision also recognizes that there may be legitimate reasons for delays, such as the complexity of the dispute or the conduct of the parties, and accordingly provides for extensions either by mutual agreement of the parties or by order of the court.

The timeline provisions under Section 29A have had a transformative impact on arbitration practice in India. Arbitrators are now much more conscious of time management and the need to conclude proceedings within the prescribed timelines. This has resulted in more focused hearings, stricter adherence to procedural schedules, and a general culture of efficiency in arbitration proceedings. While there have been some concerns about whether these timelines are always realistic, particularly in complex commercial disputes, the overall impact has been positive in terms of reducing delays and making arbitration a more predictable process.

Conclusion

The procedural aspects of arbitration in India reflect a carefully crafted legal framework that seeks to balance multiple objectives: respecting party autonomy, ensuring fairness and natural justice, minimizing judicial intervention, and promoting efficiency and expedition in the resolution of disputes. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended, provides a comprehensive statutory framework that governs every stage of the arbitration process, from commencement to the making of the final award.

The provisions relating to the commencement of arbitration ensure clarity and certainty about when the arbitration process begins, which has important implications for limitation periods and procedural rights. The dual framework for interim relief under Sections 9 and 17 provides parties with effective mechanisms to protect their rights during the pendency of arbitration while respecting the primacy of the arbitral tribunal in managing its own proceedings. The flexibility afforded to arbitral tribunals in conducting hearings and proceedings, subject to the overarching requirements of natural justice and due process, allows for proceedings to be tailored to the specific needs of each dispute.

Perhaps most significantly, the introduction of fast track procedures and mandatory timelines represents a fundamental shift toward making arbitration a truly time-bound and efficient process. These reforms address one of the major criticisms that had been leveled against arbitration in India and bring Indian arbitration law more closely in line with international best practices. The judicial pronouncements discussed in this article demonstrate that Indian courts have generally interpreted these provisions in a manner that supports the legislative intent of making arbitration more efficient and effective while ensuring that fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice are not compromised.

As arbitration continues to evolve in India, these Procedural Aspects of arbitration will remain critical to ensuring that arbitration fulfills its promise as an effective alternative to litigation. The ongoing refinement of these procedures through legislative amendments and judicial interpretation will continue to shape the arbitration landscape and strengthen India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.