INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION versus AD HOC ARBITRATION:
Aonly one type exists (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice)
Bno difference (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice)
CINSTITUTIONAL — administered by permanent arbitration institutions (MCIA, DIAC, SIAC, ICC, LCIA) with established rules, secretariat, panel; AD HOC — parties self-administer, agree on procedure ad hoc; institutional preferred for international commercial; ad hoc preferred for domestic when parties trust each other
Donly ad hoc (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice) (cf. Arbitration practice)
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. INSTITUTIONAL — administered by permanent arbitration institutions (MCIA, DIAC, SIAC, ICC, LCIA) with established rules, secretariat, panel; AD HOC — parties self-administer, agree on procedure ad hoc; institutional preferred for international commercial; ad hoc preferred for domestic when parties trust each other
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