The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 marked a significant step in reforming the process of alternate dispute resolution in India. However, there are certain provisions on which the court has taken contradictory positions in different cases. Since arbitration is a relatively nascent forum for adjudication of disputes, the powers of the arbitral tribunal and courts have clashed at times, which has led to this demarcation becoming blurry. While the essence of arbitration is to lessen the pendency in courts and help in amicable resolution of disputes, the courts at times have attempted to impose their authority over such tribunals and in the interests of justice. However, in the recent past, courts have welcomed certain arbitration practices. While there are a number of issues of conflict, this paper seeks to highlight a situation where courts have acknowledged the efficacy of arbitral tribunals and have in fact encouraged it.
This paper focuses, in particular, on Section 11(6A)2 through a series of chronological case law, to portray the pro-arbitration stance adopted by High Courts and the Supreme Court. It shows how courts were earlier a bit hesitant to divest themselves of this power. But recently, the Supreme Court has carefully balanced the power to be given to arbitral tribunals on one hand, and the power to adjudicate upon certain matters itself on the other .