Shielded Settlements: Confidentiality in Indian Arbitration Explained

Abstract

Arbitration in India stands as a robust and effective mechanism for dispute resolution, providing a compelling alternative to the protracted litigation process. It is a preferred method of resolving disputes due to its flexibility and efficiency. In India, the principle of confidentiality in arbitration is a crucial aspect that upholds the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. This article provides an in-depth exploration of the principles of privacy and confidentiality in arbitration, the legal and institutional frameworks that support these principles, and best practices for safeguarding sensitive information throughout the arbitration process.

Keywords: Arbitration, Dispute resolution, Litigation Alternative, Confidentiality, Flexibility, Cost Effective.

Introduction to Arbitration

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where the parties to a dispute agree to submit their conflict to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the matter. It is characterized by its consensual nature, flexibility, and the parties’ ability to choose the arbitrators and procedural rules. Arbitration can be either institutional, conducted under the rules of an arbitration institution, or ad hoc, where the parties agree on the arbitration process without institutional support. Arbitration provides a viable and effective alternative to traditional litigation, enabling parties to resolve conflicts in a more controlled and private environment.

Legal Framework

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , governs arbitration in India and it has adopted principles from the UNCITRAL Model Law[1], aiming to streamline arbitration procedures and enhance enforceability of arbitral awards. It encompasses a range of facets involved in arbitration, such as the selection of arbitrators, the management of arbitral procedures, and the execution of arbitral decisions.

The Act was amended in 2015 and 2019 to enhance the effectiveness of arbitration in India, eradicate vagueness and inconsistencies and align it with international best practices.

CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION

Confidentiality is one of the fundamental principles of arbitration, crucial for maintaining the privacy and integrity of the parties involved. This principle ensures that the proceedings, evidence, and arbitral awards are kept private, shielding the dispute resolution process from public scrutiny. Confidentiality is particularly vital in commercial disputes where trade secrets, business strategies, and other sensitive information are at stake. By preserving confidentiality, arbitration safeguards the parties’ interests, fostering a secure environment for resolving conflicts without the risk of exposure or competitive disadvantage.

B.N. Srikrishna J. Committee’s Report (“HLC Report”)

The B.N. Srikrishna Committee’s Report, also known as the High-Level Committee (HLC) Report, refers to the recommendations made by the committee headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna.The report was submitted on August 3^rd, 2017 and the 2019 Amendment of the Arbitration Act sought to incorporate the recommendations made in the HLC Report[2].

Key Recommendations

1. Promotion of Institutional Arbitration:

The report emphasized the need to move from ad-hoc arbitration to institutional arbitration, which can provide better infrastructure, streamlined procedures, and professional management of arbitration cases.

2. Establishment of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI):

The report recommended the creation of the ACI to grade arbitral institutions and accredit arbitrators. This council would set standards, ensure quality, and promote transparency and reliability in arbitration.

3. Confidentiality and Transparency:

Arbitration proceedings in India are considered private, which means they are conducted confidentially unless otherwise agreed by the parties or required by law. Parties often include confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements or consent orders. These clauses define the scope of confidentiality obligations, including what information is considered confidential, who is bound by confidentiality, and the consequences of breach.

The report proposed introducing a new rule ensuring the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. However, exceptions to this rule would apply in cases where:

(a) there is a legal obligation to disclose,

(b) disclosure is necessary to safeguard or assert a legal right, or

(c) disclosure is needed to enforce or contest an arbitral award in court or before a judicial body.

4. Expedited Arbitration Procedures:

The committee proposed the introduction of fast-track procedures for certain categories of disputes. This would involve simplified processes and shorter timelines to ensure swift resolution of disputes. The 2019 Amendment incorporated provisions for expedited arbitration, allowing parties to opt for a fast-track procedure that mandates a resolution within six months.

5. Autonomy in Arbitration Proceedings:

The report underscored the importance of respecting the autonomy of parties in arbitration, allowing them to choose procedures and rules that suit their needs, within the framework of the law. The report also recommended the creation of a code of conduct for arbitrators to uphold ethical standards and professionalism.

6. Judicial Activity

The report recommended measures to minimize judicial intervention in arbitration while ensuring that courts play a supportive role. This includes setting clear guidelines on the grounds for challenging arbitral awards and enforcing awards. This recommendation aimed to uphold the principle of party autonomy and ensure that courts play a supportive rather than intrusive role in arbitration.

Implementation and Impact

The recommendations of the B.N. Srikrishna Committee have led to significant reforms in the Indian arbitration landscape, including amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Some of the key changes inspired by the report include[3]:

• Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019: This amendment introduced several changes such as the establishment of the ACI to promote and encourage arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms., provisions for expedited arbitration, and measures to promote institutional arbitration.

• Appointment of Arbitrators: The 2019 amendment specifies that arbitrator appointments will be made by arbitral institutions designated by the Supreme Court or the High Court. Before the 2019 amendment, if the parties to an arbitration agreement could not agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, they had to approach the courts (either the Supreme Court or the High Court, depending on the nature of the dispute) for the appointment.

The 2019 amendment’s change regarding the appointment of arbitrators is aimed at making the arbitration process more efficient and less reliant on the court system.

• Introduction of Confidentiality: Section 42A was introduced to ensure the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. It mandates that the arbitrator, the arbitral institution, and the parties involved must keep all matters relating to the proceedings confidential, except where disclosure is necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the award.

• Time Limits for Arbitrations: The 2019 amendment revises the timelines for the completion of arbitration proceedings. It stipulates that the written claim and defence should be completed within six months from the date the arbitrators receive the written notice. Additionally, the arbitration proceedings should be completed within twelve months of the date of the arbitral tribunal’s constitution, which can be extended by a further six months with the consent of the parties.

• Institutional Rules: Many arbitration institutions in India, such as the the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA),India Dispute Resolution Centre(IDRC),International Chamber of Commerce (ICC),Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) introduced by the ACA 2019, have adopted rules that specifically address confidentiality. These rules may provide detailed provisions on confidentiality obligations, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms.

The HLC Report by the B.N. Srikrishna Committee has been instrumental in transforming India’s arbitration framework, aiming to position India as a global hub for arbitration. The emphasis on institutional arbitration, professional standards, and minimal judicial intervention are key steps towards achieving a more effective and efficient arbitration system in the country.

Crucial Role of Confidentiality in Arbitration

During the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2023, Lord (Peter) Goldsmith emphasized the importance of extending the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings to court proceedings. He argued that this extension would honour party autonomy and prevent the exposure of sensitive financial information in open court.[4]

• Upholding Privacy and Trust: Confidentiality in arbitration ensures a secure environment for parties to disclose sensitive information, fostering trust. Unlike public court proceedings, arbitration allows for private hearings, crucial for protecting commercial secrets and personal data.
• Preserving Business Relationships: Confidential arbitration helps maintain business relationships by resolving disputes discreetly. This approach prevents reputational damage and avoids the public scrutiny associated with court litigation, thus preserving professional relationships and corporate image.
• Facilitating Open Communication: Confidentiality encourages open and honest communication, allowing parties to explore settlement options and negotiate terms without fear of public exposure.
• Enhancing Flexibility and Efficiency: Confidentiality provides flexibility in tailoring arbitration processes to specific needs, including the level of confidentiality desired. It also helps avoid the procedural complexities and delays common in public litigation, making arbitration a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism.

Key Provisions of Confidentiality and Procedural Fairness in Indian Arbitration Law

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 itself does not explicitly address confidentiality in great detail, certain principles and practices have evolved through judicial interpretations and arbitral guidelines’. Sections 42A, 27, and 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, each deal with different aspects of arbitration proceedings. Here’s a detailed explanation of each:

1. Section 42A: Introduced through an amendment in 2019, Section 42A mandates that both the arbitrator and the parties involved in arbitration must maintain confidentiality regarding the arbitration proceedings. The HLC Report referenced Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (HKAO) as a model when suggesting the inclusion of a confidentiality clause in the Act[5].

The term “arbitration proceedings” is not specifically defined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA). Generally, “proceedings” refer to all actions taken to advance a case, including hearings and court orders. Therefore, arbitration proceedings encompass all events from the initiation of arbitration to the final award. According to Section 42A of the ACA, all such information must be kept confidential.

• Section 42A also empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures either before the commencement of arbitral proceedings or at any time during the proceedings.

“Notwithstanding anything contained by any other law for the time being in force, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution and the parties to the arbitration agreement shall maintain confidentially of all arbitral proceedings except award where its disclosure is necessary for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of the award.”[6]

The High-Level Committee (HLC) recommended maintaining confidentiality in arbitration proceedings while also suggesting certain exceptions. These exceptions were intended for scenarios such as the performance of legal duties, the protection or enforcement of legal rights, and the enforcement or challenge of an arbitral award. However, these exceptions were not incorporated into Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA)[7].

If we examine the intent behind Section 42A, it is clear that the primary goal was to uphold confidentiality without hindering the fulfilment of legal obligations. Although Section 42A emphasizes confidentiality, it does not explicitly define what types of information should be considered confidential. To navigate this ambiguity, it is crucial to delineate what information qualifies as confidential within the context of arbitration proceedings.

Furthermore, Section 42A includes a non-obstante clause, which means it takes precedence over any conflicting laws and mandates that parties must follow its provisions. This removes the parties’ autonomy, a point that was not suggested in the HLC Report recommendations.[8]

• In the case involving com NV Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) vs Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL)[9], the Competition Commission of India (CCI) addressed Section 42A of the Competition Act, 2002. FCPL sought to use documents from ongoing arbitration proceedings in their case against Amazon. Amazon objected, arguing that this was a violation of Section 42A of the Act. However, the CCI dismissed this objection. It noted that while some facts might be relevant to both the CCI proceedings and the arbitration, the legal issues in each are distinct. The CCI clarified that its role is to address potential violations of the Competition Act, 2002, and that parties are free to seek redress for other legal issues in the appropriate forums.
• Section 29: Section 29 was added to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in 2015. This provision was subsequently revised in 2019. The provision seeks to streamline the arbitration process and boost India’s appeal as a favourable destination for arbitration. This provision applies to both domestic and international commercial arbitrations.

Section 29A aspects related to the arbitrators’ mandate, including their replacement, fee adjustments, and overall termination of their mandate.

The purpose of Section 29A was designed to ensure that parties are aware of the necessity to finalize arbitration proceedings within a reasonable timeframe, thereby reducing delays. This provision requires an arbitral tribunal to issue an arbitral award within 12 months from the date the pleadings are concluded, with a possible extension of up to 6 months if both parties agree. If the tribunal fails to deliver the award within this timeframe, its mandate expires, and it can no longer proceed with the case, regardless of the stage of the proceedings[10].

• In the case of ATC Telecom Infrastructure v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2023)[11], the Delhi High Court reviewed petitions filed under Section 29A(4) seeking more time to complete the arbitration and deliver the award. Initially, an order was issued  on May 19, 2021, concerning the contract between the parties, and a subsequent order on May 27, 2022, addressed additional disputes that had emerged. The Court examined the progress of the arbitration following the May 27 order.

By the time of this case, the arbitration had reached an advanced stage. Both parties agreed that more time was necessary to complete the arbitration process. They jointly submitted a petition to the Court under Section 29A(4), requesting an extension beyond the statutory time limits. The Court found that, considering the specifics of the case and the mutual agreement of both parties, there were no legal obstacles to granting the extension. Section 29A(4) allows for such extensions under appropriate circumstances.

Section 29A of the Act does not define the term “Court.” To determine its meaning, one must refer to Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. This section specifies that in domestic arbitration, the term “Court” refers to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district. Additionally, it includes the High Court when it is exercising its ordinary original civil jurisdiction[12].

• In the case of Amit Kumar Gupta v. Dipak Prasad,[13] the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court interpreted the term “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court understood this term to reflect the role of the appointing authority, as outlined in Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 provides the mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators, designating the “Court” as the authority responsible for such appointments when parties cannot agree on them. Consequently, the Court distinguished the term “Court” in Section 29(4) from that in Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act, interpreting it to refer to the “Supreme Court” in cases of international commercial arbitration and to the “High Court” in matters of domestic arbitration.

• In the case of DDA v Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co.[14](2020), the Delhi High Court examined the scope of the term “Court” under Section 29A. The court addressed two main issues concerning this definition:

Does the District Court qualify as a “Court” under Section 29A?[15]

The ruling clarified that Section 29A grants the “Court” responsible for extending the arbitration mandate the authority to replace the arbitrator. Therefore, if the initial appointment of the arbitral tribunal was made by the High Court, then only the High Court has the authority to replace the arbitrator, not the District Court. In cases involving international commercial arbitration, such authority would lie with the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court, citing judgments from the Gujarat High Court in Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel v. Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel [16]and the Bombay High Court in Cabra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.[17], affirmed that only a court empowered to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act has the jurisdiction to handle an application under Section 29A for extending the tribunal’s mandate.

The 2019 Amendment Act doesn’t specify whether Section 29A should be applied retroactively or only prospectively. This creates uncertainty about whether the updated rules in Section 29A apply to arbitration cases that were ongoing before the Amendment took effect on August 30, 2019.

• In ONGC Petro Additions Limited v. Fernas Construction Co. Inc (2020)[18],the Delhi High Court examined how recent amendments to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affect arbitration processes. These amendments, following the recommendations of the High-Level Committee on Arbitration, limited the application of Section 29A to domestic arbitrations only, excluding international commercial arbitrations from its time constraints.

The Court clarified that Section 29A(1) applies to all domestic arbitrations that were ongoing in India as of August 30, 2019, and which commenced after October 23, 2015.[19] These domestic cases must adhere to the time limits set by Section 29A. Conversely, for international commercial arbitrations, the tribunal is not restricted by the time limits established in the order of September 25, 2019. This decision underscored that while strict timelines are enforced for domestic arbitrations, international commercial arbitrations have greater flexibility in their duration.

• Section 27: Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) establishes a process through which the arbitral tribunal or a disputing party (with the tribunal’s approval) can request the court’s help in gathering evidence. Notably, this is one of the few sections of the Arbitration Act that permits court intervention or assistance in arbitration proceedings regulated by the Act’s provisions.
• In the case of Ennore Port Limited v. Hindustan Construction Co. Limited(2005)[20], the High Court of Judicature at Madras dealt with an application under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This section pertains to the court’s power to assist in the collection of evidence during arbitration proceedings.

Ennore Port Limited had approached the court seeking its intervention to gather evidence that was deemed crucial for the arbitration process. The court, while considering this application, acknowledged its discretion to rule on such matters. However, it emphasized that this discretion should not be exercised automatically.

The court underscored the need to strike a balance between the exercise of judicial discretion and the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration, as mandated by Section 5 of the Arbitration Act[21]. This section aims to ensure that arbitration remains an efficient and autonomous method of dispute resolution without undue court intervention.

• In the case of Delta Distilleries Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd.(2013)[22]the Supreme Court of India examined an objection regarding an order passed by an arbitral tribunal that permitted the respondent to apply under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court dismissed the objection, stating that the arbitral tribunal is mandated to make a decision based on the merits of the claims presented to it. To achieve this, the tribunal must have the ability to gather necessary evidence. If the tribunal is unable to obtain the evidence on its own, it can rely on Section 27, which allows the tribunal to seek the court’s assistance in collecting the evidence.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, did not address the specific powers of the court under Section 27, nor did it interfere with the order issued by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had directed only respondent no. 1 to produce the required documents, rather than both respondents as initially requested by the opposing party in their Section 27 application.

This case underscores the principle established in the Ennore Port Limited v. Hindustan Construction Co. Limited (“Ennore Ports”) case, where the court emphasized that exercising discretion in handling applications under Section 27 should not be automatic. Instead, the court must carefully consider each application and use its discretion judiciously when deciding whether to grant or reject the request for assistance in gathering evidence.

Contrary Views

In contrast to the stance taken in Ennore Port Limited v. Hindustan Construction Co. Limited, several other cases have presented differing opinions. The Delhi High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. M/S S.A. Enterprises[23], Thiess Minecs India vs NTPC Limited & Anr. and the Bombay High Court in Montana Developers Pvt. Ltd v. Aditya Developers And Ors[24]. have taken an opposing view. In these cases, the courts refused to evaluate the correctness of the arbitral tribunal’s order under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

These courts maintained that the role of the court under Section 27 is not adjudicatory but executory. They emphasized that the court’s function is to assist in the collection of evidence as requested by the arbitral tribunal without questioning the merits of the tribunal’s order.

These rulings underscored the importance of Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, which advocates for minimal judicial interference in arbitration proceedings. The courts reiterated that the judiciary should not interfere with arbitral tribunal orders under Section 27 because the Arbitration Act does not provide a mechanism for challenging such orders. This perspective aligns with the principle that arbitration should remain an efficient and autonomous process, free from excessive court intervention.[25]

Can a foreign witness be summoned under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act?[26]

In the case of Stemcor (S.E.A.) Pte Limited and Another v. Mideast Integrated Steels Limited[27], the Bombay High Court faced an issue where a key witness for the petitioner was unwilling to travel to India due to concerns about possible prosecution related to ongoing regulatory inquiries. The court, in response to an application under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act, acknowledged the importance of this witness’s testimony for the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the court designated the arbitrator as the Court Commissioner and instructed a team of lawyers along with the Court Commissioner to go to Singapore to record the witness’s testimony. The court underscored that evidence collected by the appointed commission would be more reliable than that obtained via video conferencing, as the commission acts as the court’s representative for evidence recording purposes.

This ruling demonstrates the Bombay High Court’s supportive stance towards arbitration, ensuring the testimony could be gathered in Singapore while addressing procedural challenges such as logistical issues and the need for letters of request.

Loopholes in Indian Arbitration

• The inconsistency in arbitration procedures and the handling of arbitral awards has been a significant issue for parties choosing arbitration for dispute resolution. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services[28] Inc. (The Supreme Court ruled in favour of enforcing the foreign arbitration award in India. The Court held that Indian courts should not interfere with the enforcement of international arbitration awards rendered under agreements made outside India.) could provide some relief for arbitrations conducted outside India.
• Arbitration awards should be final and binding without the possibility of challenge, regardless of the arbitration’s location. There is a pressing need to restrict the grounds on which an award can be contested in India. Allowing appeals not only increases the cost and duration of arbitration but also makes the process resemble litigation.
• Courts struggle with arbitrator appointments due to: (i) having a narrow selection of arbitrators; (ii) lacking detailed information on arbitrators’ availability; (iii) insufficient data on their performance and quality[29].
• The absence of a specified timeframe for completing arbitration proceedings makes it a less appealing option for resolving disputes. Reports indicate that 9% of companies faced arbitration that extended beyond three years. Qualitative feedback suggests that arbitration taking more than three years is often a burdensome and costly process for the involved parties.
• The formation of the arbitral tribunal is a lengthy process and is considered a major factor influencing the duration of arbitration proceedings. This is followed by the exchange of pleadings, discovery and document inspection, and enforcement of the award.

Reforms in Indian Arbitration

On May 11, 2024, the Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) was officially inaugurated in a ceremony that marked a significant milestone in the Indian legal landscape. The event was graced by notable dignitaries, including the Minister for External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, and the incumbent Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta. The launch of ABI is viewed as a landmark development in the field of arbitration and dispute resolution in India.[30]

• The list of arbitrators should include a diverse range of professionals, such as judges, advocates, and technical experts. To compile this list, a selection process should invite interested candidates to apply and be assessed based on their expertise, arbitration experience, and certifications from institutions like the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

• The arbitration community is concerned about the lack of transparency in arbitrators’ fees for ad hoc arbitration. To address this, it is proposed that fees outlined in the Fourth Schedule should be standard for all cases. Any deviations should require either the parties’ express consent or the approval of the Section 11 Court. If courts find the Fourth Schedule fees too high considering the dispute’s value or complexity, they should be allowed to refer the dispute to an Online Dispute Resolution service recognized by the Ministry of Law and Justice[31].

• Interim or emergency orders from foreign-seated arbitrations should be made enforceable under Indian legislation. However, there should be a mechanism allowing Indian courts to exercise limited oversight before enforcing such orders. Grounds similar to those in Article 47(2) of the Act which deals with the enforcement of foreign awards, outlines specific grounds on which an Indian court may refuse to enforce such awards could be applied to refuse enforcement in exceptional cases.

• The practice of arbitrators paraphrasing witness testimony, often without recording questions, reduces accuracy and extends cross-examination time. In contrast, international practice uses verbatim transcription. The Act should adopt similar cost-effective AI-based transcription methods, as endorsed by the Supreme Court, and guidelines should be established to ensure accurate and efficient recording of proceedings based on the dispute’s value and associated costs.

• The rise in arbitration cases, including those through Online Dispute Resolution, is expected to surpass 1 million cases per month, increasing the demand for arbitrators. With this surge, there will be instances of incorrect awards. Due to the high threshold for challenging awards and the lack of court power to correct them, poor-quality awards may become final or lead to costly re-arbitration. Following the Supreme Court’s validation of multi-tiered arbitration clauses in *Centrotrade Minerals*, it is proposed that statutory recognition be given to such clauses, enabling parties to choose arbitration institutions that offer appellate remedies to address poor-quality awards.

CONCLUSION

Confidentiality remains a cornerstone of effective arbitration in India, ensuring that sensitive information is protected and that the arbitration process is conducted with discretion. While the Indian legal framework has made strides in upholding this principle, challenges persist, particularly with the integration of international standards and practices. To fortify confidentiality in Indian arbitration, it is crucial to continue refining regulations, enhancing transparency in procedures, and fostering a culture of trust among parties. By addressing existing gaps and embracing best practices, India can strengthen its arbitration environment, providing parties with the assurance that their disputes will be resolved with the highest level of confidentiality and integrity.

References:

[1] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (1996) https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11799/1/the_arbitration_and_conciliation_act%2C_1996.pdf

[2] “Report of the High Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India” https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Report-HLC.pdf

[3] Ibid 1

[4] Sahil N and Sania A, “Confidentiality In Arbitral Proceedings: An Indian Perspective” Mondaq (August 10, 2023) https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration–dispute-resolution/1353704/confidentiality-in-arbitral-proceedings-an-indian-perspective

[5] Manasi, “Analysing the Insertion of Section 42A in the Arbitration Act – iPleaders” (iPleaders, September 21, 2020) https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysing-insertion-section-42a-arbitration-act/

[6] ACT No. 26 OF ACA 1996

[7] “NPAC’s Arbitration Review: New Confidentiality Provision in the Indian Arbitration Act” (Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News, September 30, 2019) https://www.barandbench.com/columns/npac-arbitration-review-confidentiality-provision-indian-arbitration-act

[8] Ibid 5

[9] O.M.P (ENF) (COMM) 17/2021

[10] “Purpose, Parameters And Problems Of  Section 29A” Mondaq (March 4, 2022) https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration–dispute-resolution/1168310/purpose-parameters-and-problems-of–section-29a

[11] “Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private … vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Indian Kanoon O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 466/2023 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 467/2023

[12] “SC Settles Question On Interpretation Of ‘Court’ Under S.29A Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act” Mondaq (June 4, 2024) https://www.mondaq.com/india/court-procedure/1474124/sc-settles-question-on-interpretation-of-court-under-s29a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act

[13] Amit Kumar Gupta v. Dipak Prasad, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2174.

[14] OMP (MISC.) (COMM) 236/2019

[15] Ibid 10

[16] Misc. Civil Application (O.J.) No. 1 of 2018 in Petition under Arbitration Act No.56 of 2016, decided on 14.09.2018

[17] 2019 SCC Online Bom 1437

[18] OMP(MISC) (COM) 256/2019, I.A.  4989/2020

[19] “Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 – IPleaders” (iPleaders, June 22, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-29a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1966/

[20] AIR 2007 Mad 73.

[21] “Discretion Of Courts Under Section 27 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996” Mondaq (July 27, 2021) https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/1095640/discretion-of-courts-under-section-27-of-the-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996

[22] 2014 (1) SCC 113, 2013

[23] 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5063

[24] Montana Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Aditya Developers And Ors, 2016 (6) MhLJ 660

[25] Ibid 21

[26] Ibid 21

[27] AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 336

[28]  CIVIL APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2005

[29] “Corporate Attitudes & Practices towards Arbitration in India” https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2013/corporate-attributes-and-practices-towards-arbitration-in-india.pdf

[30] Indulia B, “Establishment of Arbitration Bar Aligns with the Vision to Position India as a Premier Destination for Arbitration; Says Dr S. Jaishankar at ABI Launch | SCC Times” (SCC Times, May 13, 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/13/arbitrate-in-india-dr-s-jaishankar-at-the-inauguration-of-the-arbitration-bar-of-india/

[31] Vikas Mahendra and Nishanth Kadur, “Arbitration Reform Recommendations: Need for Change in Practice, Policy, Technology and the Law” (Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News, July 8, 2023) https://www.barandbench.com/columns/arbitration-reforms-need-for-change-in-practice-policy-technology-and-the-law