Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68149
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-3
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
School of Law
SRM Institute of Science and Technology
Commercial arbitration has become the first-choice route for resolving business disputes, largely because courts in many countries are overloaded and slow. This paper looks at how arbitration works in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and how the statute has changed through the amendments of 2015, 2019 and 2021. It then follows the Supreme Court’s major rulings on the seat of arbitration, the independence of arbitrators, the grounds for challenging awards and, most recently, the limited power of courts to modify an award. The discussion shows that the law has moved steadily toward party autonomy and finality, yet delay, cost, uneven institutional capacity and judicial overreach still hold back the system. The paper closes with practical suggestions for lawmakers, institutions, counsel and contracting parties.
KEYWORDS
India’s arbitration law has travelled a long way from the court-dominated model of 1940. The legislature has narrowed the grounds for interference, the Supreme Court has largely supported finality, and recent rulings show an effort to balance respect for tribunals with the need for correction in clear cases. What remains is mostly a problem of implementation: faster courts, stronger institutions and more disciplined contract drafting. If those gaps are closed, arbitration can deliver what it promises, a private, expert and final resolution of commercial disputes.
[1] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act No. 26 of 1996, India, as amended by Acts of 2015, 2019 and 2021. [2] Law Commission of India, “Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,” Rep. No. 246, Aug. 2014. [3] Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552. [4] Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, (2019) 15 SCC 131. [5] Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench, Apr. 30, 2025. [6] Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corp., (2021) 2 SCC 1. [7] Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209. [8] Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760. [9] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958. [10] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006.
Publication Date
10/20/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
5
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...