Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · Emerging Aspects: Fast Track and Virtual Arbitration

Orion Infra Ltd (Mumbai) and Deccan Steel Ltd (Hyderabad) have not agreed on a seat for their arbitration. The sole arbitrator proposes to hold the evidence hearings of witnesses entirely by video conference from his office in Pune, with the parties joining from their own cities. Nothing in the agreement restricts where the tribunal may meet. Which statement is correct?

The tribunal fixes the place of arbitration, having regard to the circumstances and the parties' convenience, since they did not agree. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, it may also meet at any place it considers appropriate for hearing witnesses, so a hearing from Pune is permissible.

  1. AThe place of arbitration must be fixed by the High Court because the parties did not agree
  2. BThe place must be Mumbai because the claimant is based there
  3. CThe tribunal determines the place of arbitration having regard to the circumstances including the convenience of the parties, and unless otherwise agreed may meet at any place it considers appropriate for hearing witnessesCorrect
  4. DThe tribunal can hear witnesses only at the place of arbitration even if the parties agree otherwise

Explanation

Under Section 20(2), failing agreement the tribunal determines the place of arbitration having regard to the circumstances, including convenience of the parties. Section 20(3) lets it, unless otherwise agreed, meet at any place it considers appropriate for hearing witnesses, experts or parties. Option A is wrong because no court role is provided.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Emerging Aspects: Fast Track and Virtual Arbitration shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Emerging Aspects: Fast Track and Virtual ArbitrationFree diagnostic mock

More Emerging Aspects: Fast Track and Virtual Arbitration questions