INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION versus AD HOC ARBITRATION:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C.
1. ARBITRATION can be either INSTITUTIONAL or AD HOC:
2. INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION:
3. (i) Administered by permanent arbitration institutions;
4. (ii) Institution provides ESTABLISHED RULES, SECRETARIAT, PANEL of arbitrators;
5. (iii) Examples (India): Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), International and Comparative Law Research Centre (ICLAW), Chennai International Centre for Arbitration (CICA);
6. (iv) Examples (International): International Court of Arbitration (ICC, Paris); Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC); London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); American Arbitration Association (AAA); Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC);
7. (v) Cost: HIGHER fees (institutional + arbitrator);
8. (vi) PROCESS: smoother, predictable, supervised.
9. AD HOC ARBITRATION:
10. (i) Parties SELF-ADMINISTER;
11. (ii) Parties agree on procedure ad hoc (or UNCITRAL Rules);
12. (iii) Cost: LOWER fees;
13. (iv) Risk: procedural issues if no institutional support.
14. The 2019 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 promoted INSTITUTIONAL arbitration in India.
15. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Bare Act) + Mediation Act 2023 — Arbitration practice_
Related questions
In SBP & Co. v. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD (2005) 8 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that the JUSection 28 Arbitration Act 1996 specifies APPLICABLE LAW:Section 39 Arbitration Act 1996 grants the arbitral tribunal LIEN on the:INTERIM AWARD under Arbitration Act 1996:Section 38 Arbitration Act 1996 (DEPOSITS) requires parties to:DOMESTIC ARBITRATION versus INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:Section 21 Arbitration Act 1996 defines COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION as:Section 43 Arbitration Act 1996 (LIMITATION) provides that the period of LIMITATION ACT 19