Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · International Law of Arbitration

Kiran Pharma is resisting enforcement in India of a foreign award. It shows that the tribunal was constituted in a manner different from what the arbitration agreement provided, and the agreement did not allow that change. Under Section 48(1), which ground does this most directly establish?

The ground is that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the parties' agreement. Section 48(1)(d) allows refusal of enforcement when the tribunal's composition or the procedure departed from what the parties agreed, and Kiran Pharma has proved exactly that departure.

  1. AComposition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the partiesCorrect
  2. BThe award has not yet become binding on the parties
  3. CThe subject-matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law
  4. DThe award is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice

Explanation

Section 48(1)(d) covers a case where the composition of the arbitral authority or the procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement. The other options relate to finality, arbitrability and public policy, which are not the facts shown.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on International Law of Arbitration shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise International Law of ArbitrationFree diagnostic mock

More International Law of Arbitration questions