Submitted By: Kartikey Sanjeev Bhalotia & Sandeep Golani
The imperative role of Alternate Dispute Resolution (hereinafter, ‘ADR’) methods in settling disputes effectively is incontestable. Though, India has not yet witnessed such effectiveness. ADR methods has always borne a fancy connotation to it, which has prevented it to spread its routes in the mainstream. The fact which is more concerning is that, ADR methods has not been able to settle disputes effectively even for the few who have the resources to resort to it.
This paper attempts at analyzing the judgement of the apex court of India in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd & Ors, this case came ahead of the recent amendment brought to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, the “Act”). The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter, “Amendment Act”), brought certain significant changes in the outdated and ineffective Act. Despite good intentions, certain unintended results followed. The infamous Section 26 of the Amendment Act, had created a lot of confusion before the national courts of India.
The case specifically dealt with the amendments brought to Section 36 of the Act, and its applicability to the pending cases before the courts, by interpreting Section 26 of the Amendment Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgement came with a much-required interpretation of Section 26 of the Amendment Act, which provided some clarity as to the applicability of the amended Section 36 to pending cases. This paper would analyse the Hon’ble court’s judgement and try to put forth its implications on the current scenario of dispute resolution in the country.
