`

H.S.N.C BOARD’S
KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM LAW COLLEGE,
MUMBAI
(AFFILIATED TO UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI)

PRATICAL COMPONENT- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

ON
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: INDIAN ARBITRATION
PROVISIONS WITH SINGAPORE: SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
SUBMITTED BY
MS. LAVEENA TEJWANI
2ND YEAR LL.M. (SEM III)
GROUP II- BUSINESS LAW
SERIAL NO.17
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
DR. BRINDA GURUBUXANI
FACULTY, K.C. LAW COLLEGE
ACADEMIC YEAR
2022-23
 LIST OF ABBREVAITIONS

And &
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Act
All India Reporter AIR
Limited Ltd.
Number No.
Supreme Court Cases SCC
Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC
Singapore Court of Appeal SGCA
Under Section u/s.
Versus vs.
Videre licet (namely, which is) viz.

1
 LIST OF CASES REFFERED

CASE LAW CITATION

BNA v. BNB 2019 SGCA 84

D.A. Desai J. in Guru Nanak Foundation v Rattan Singh

(1981) 4 SCC 634
F.C.I vs Joginderpal Mohinderpal (1989) 2 SCC 347

Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd

2009 SGCA 24

ST Group Co Ltd v Sanum Investments Limited 2022 SGCA 2

(2009) 4 SCC 523

Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate

TABLE OF CONTENT
2
 I. INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------4

Problem Statement--------------------------------------------------------4

II. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES---------------------------------------------5

III. EXISTING LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS-----------------6

IV. DETAIL ANALYSIS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY--------------8

IV.1. Comparison between Commercial Arbitration in India and

Singapore with regards to SIAC

Rules---------------------------------------------------8

IV.2. Comparison of International Arbitration Regulations of India and

Singapore with regards to International Arbitration Act-----------10

IV.3. Enforcement of Foreign Awards--------------------------------------12

IV.4. Enforcement of Domestic Awards------------------------------------14

IV.5. Comparison of Enforcement Provisions-----------------------------15

V. CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------17

VI. SUGGESTIONS--------------------------------------------------------20

VII. REFERENCE-----------------------------------------------------------21

Webliography-----------------------------------------------------------21

Bibliography------------------------------------------------------------22

3
 I. INTRODUCTION
The present Comparative Study focuses on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,19961 and the provisions of Singapore International Arbitration Act, 1994 2. This present
Comparative Study also takes into consideration International Commercial Arbitration.

At this present time, Arbitration has taken a primary importance as the most sought out
method of Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India and its demand continues to
grow. For this purpose and for the purpose of regulating the Arbitration laws on the basis
globally recognized standards, the Indian Parliament enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 which borrowed on the principles from the UNCITRAL model laws on
Arbitration, a set of 36 Articles. This UNCITRAL Model law was drafted to govern all the
international arbitrations by a working group of the United Nations.

The purpose of this comparative study is to analyze the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 in India relating to the enforcement provisions of Indian Arbitration
Act and Singapore Arbitration Act and its impact on the conduct of arbitration proceedings,
enforcement of arbitral awards, and the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal.

India being a developing country is paving its way towards arbitration and conciliation
whereas Singapore is a much ahead of India in terms of the arbitration laws and is a hub of
almost all the International Commercial Arbitration. Although the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 covers International Commercial Arbitration , minimise interventions
of the Courts and provide expeditious awards however, sometimes are faced with difficulties
for which unique recommendations were provided by the 246th Law Commission Report3 and
also the SIAC Rules.4

PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The comparative analysis aims to identify the gaps and areas where Indian arbitration laws
can be improved to align with the globally recognized standards and practices followed in
Singapore. It also aims to examine the impact of these differences in the conduct of
1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996.
2
Singapore International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A).
3
246th Law Commission Report, Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6th Edition, 01st August 2016.

4
arbitration proceedings, enforcement of arbitral awards, and the authority of the arbitral
tribunal. The research aims to provide recommendations to improve Indian arbitration laws to
ensure a more efficient and effective arbitration process in line with international best
practices.

In addition, the analysis can help identify areas where the two countries can collaborate and
learn from each other. Singapore is known for its efficient and transparent legal system, while
India has a large pool of skilled legal professionals and experienced arbitrators. Therefore,
India can benefit from learning from Singapore's streamlined approach to arbitration
procedures, while Singapore can leverage India's talent pool to expand its presence in the
region.

Furthermore, as cross-border disputes become increasingly common in the globalized world,

a comprehensive understanding of the arbitration laws of different countries is necessary to
ensure seamless cross-border trade and investment. A comparative analysis of Indian and
Singaporean arbitration provisions can help bridge the gap between these legal systems and
promote harmonization of laws governing international arbitration.

II. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This comparative study aims to analyse the
 To study the existing Indian Arbitration Legislation and Singapore Arbitration
Legislation
 To find out various improvement points to be inculcated in Indian Arbitration
Legislation for reference to future changes.
 To study and analyse practicality and the implications of the Singapore Arbitration
Laws in the Indian Society.
 To analyse and find out possible suggestions and/ or solutions for improvement of
Arbitral Laws in India.

5
 III. EXISTING LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISION

Arbitration being one of the highly promoted method of Alternate Dispute Resolution
mechanism is now a days used in most of the dispute resolving methods including
International Disputes relating to trade and commerce between two countries. Resolving
disputes amicably and lucratively, by mutually appointing an arbitrator is a way forward for
quick and effective dispute resolution.

The Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was the first legislation enacted for Arbitration laws in
India which was undoubtedly a legacy of the British rule in India, pursuant to which
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted. This Act of 1996 provides a framework
for the conduct of arbitration proceedings and the enforcement of arbitral awards. Although
India is promoting Arbitration and quick resolutions of dispute, however is faced with
shortcomings when it comes to International Commercial Arbitration. Few of the
shortcomings are the issues of place, seat and venue of arbitration, execution of the foreign
seated arbitration etc.

India being a developing country has given boom to the globalisation and economy. Many
foreign investors are trying to pave their ways into Indian markets by investing in Indian
Companies and Government Bonds. It is obvious that where there is rise in business and
trades, disputes may arise, these disputes arising out of the international transactions are to be
resolved amicably and expeditiously and for the same reason a suitable mechanism is a need
of the hour.

Arbitration laws in India helps these disputes to be resolved as smoothly as possible with a
minimum intervention from the courts by giving the arbitrator powers of a judge in a civil
court. The Ld. Arbitrator appointed by both parties hear the matter at regular intervals and
gives his final award after giving opportunity to both the parties, this arbitral award is
enforceable as a decree of a civil court. This arbitral award can be challenged and the
provisions of the same are well defined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under
sections 34 and 37 of the Act5. For the purpose of smooth and speedy resolution and with the

5
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996.

6
view of providing quick reliefs to the parties in dispute, there have been few amendments to
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

When comparing the Indian arbitration laws with that of the Singapore, attention of one
should be drawn to growth that Singapore as the leading hub of arbitration has attracted over
the years. Today, in the 21st century, Singapore is moving ahead as one of the worlds leading
hub in arbitration. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) was established in
July 1991. SIAC Rules6 are applicable to the parties who have mutually agreed to resolve
their disputes under the SIAC Rules. Various studies have shown that in the years from 2017
onwards every year approx.. 400 new cases have been registered in SIAC.

It is clear from the above that for India to be become a developed country with efficient
mechanism of dispute resolution and to emerge as a country of global supremacy, India has to
inculcate in its legislation various changes in the procedure of conduct of arbitration and
speed to resolve the dispute between the parties. The recent amendments to the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a stepping stone and a welcome change to initiate expeditious
arbitral trials and resolution mechanism.

The contribution of a strong legislation viz. International Arbitration Act, Singapore

(Enforcement Mechanism) is behind the success of the SIAC Rules . The Arbitral awards
are scrutinised thoroughly in Singapore, making the enforcement of these awards easy and
without issues/ hassles. SIAC comprises of well-known lawyers from all around the world.
Some of the features of enforcement of an arbitral award in Singapore are as under:

i. The award made in Singapore are enforceable in 161 jurisdiction through New
York Convention.
ii. The Parties are at liberty to choose procedural rules and venue of proceedings

6
Supra, Note 4

7
 IV. DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY

IV.1 COMPARISION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION IN INDIA AND SINGAPORE WITH REGARDS
TO SIAC RULES

a. Commencement of arbitration proceedings:

Section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 7provides that an arbitral
proceeding will commence once the notice is served upon the other party.
Whereas SIAC Rules specifies in Rule 3.18 that the aggrieved party who
wishes to initiate arbitral proceedings, must file notice of the events with the
Registrar. The compulsion of giving notice to the opposite is waived in SIAC
Rules but still prevalent in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

b. Seat of Arbitration
Under Section 20 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 9 the parties are at
liberty choose seat of arbitration while entering into an agreement, whereas
SIAC Rules specifies in Rule 21.110 that parties may agree to a seat of
arbitration, however, in event of no agreement between the parties with
regards to the seat of arbitration, the seat of arbitration shall be in Singapore.

c. Interlocutory Reliefs
Under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199611, a party can apply
for interim reliefs before the Court even before the commencement of Arbitral
Proceedings or at the time of on-going arbitral proceedings and also after the
passing of ward but before the enforcement of the same. Whereas, as the SIAC
7
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 21- Commencement of arbitral proceedings
8
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6 th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 3.1 Notice of
Arbitration
9
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 20- Place of arbitration
10
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6 th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 21.1- Seat of
the Arbitration
11
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 9- Interim measures, etc., by Court

8
 Rules and more particularly Rule 30.112, the Arbitral Tribunal on the request
of the parties may grant interim reliefs on condition that a security may be
deposited by party willing to sought interim reliefs on the grounds of urgency.

d. Appeal against the Arbitral Awards

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199613 gives the aggrieved
party to an award to approach the Court of Law by filing an appeal under this
section for setting aside of award under the grounds mentioned in the sub-
clause (2) of Section34 within a period of 01 year from the date of notice sent
to the other side, whereas, in the SIAC Rules and more particularly in the Rule
20.814 , if the Claimant itself fails to file his Statement of Claim within the
specified period, the Tribunal may terminate the arbitration proceedings.

e. Appeals
In Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provisions under Section 37, 50
and 5915specify that an appeal can lie in the before the Court from the Original
decrees of the Court. Under the SIAC Rules, as per Rule 32.11 16, the award
shall be final and binding on both the parties from the date the award is made.
The settlement under these rules are precise and the chances of filing an
appeal from this award are very minuscule.

f. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

In India Section 35, 36, 48, 49, 55, 57 & 58 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 199617 where the court is satisfied that foreign award is enforceable by
law, the award can be deemed to be decree. Foreign award needs to be precise
and even all the measures should be seen from both the parties and settlement
is made so that it can be enforced. Whereas in Singapore as per rule 32.8 18 an

12
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 30.1-
Interim and Emergency Relief
13
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 34- Application for setting aside arbitral
award
14
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 20.8
15
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 37, 50 and 59
16
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 32.11
17
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 35,36,48,49,55, 57 and 58
18
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6 th Edition, 01st August 2016, Rule 32.8- “The
Award shall be delivered to the Registrar, who shall transmit certified copies to the parties upon full settlement
of the costs of the arbitration.”

9
 award shall be enforced when the award is delivered to Registrar and after
verifying it will transmit certified copies to both the parties upon full
settlement.

IV.2 COMPARISION OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

REGULATIONS OF INDIA AND SINGAPORE WITH REGARDS
TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT

a. Definitions
The International Arbitration Act, Singapore (Enforcement Mechanism) in its
Section 27(1) 19
states that an written agreement with a arbitration clause is
necessary. Further, in the International Arbitration Act, Singapore
(Enforcement Mechanism), an arbitration agreement means an agreement in
writing of the kind referred to in paragraph 1 of Article II of the Convention.
Similarly, Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199620i.e. Part II
Enforcement of Certain Foreign Awards deals with the written requirement of
arbitration clause that is expressly communicated to the other party to the
agreement. The provisions and definition in both the acts have been borrowed
from the New York Convention, 1956

b. Interlocutory Reliefs
As mentioned in the comparison between the SIAC Rules and Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 herein-above, the International Arbitration Act,
Singapore (Enforcement Mechanism) set out in section 12(1)(c) to (i) (interim
awards or interim measures by the tribunal) 21. However, no provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with interim reliefs in Foreign
Award.

c. Involvement of Higher Courts for enforcement of Foreign Award:

19
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 27(1)- “agreement in writing includes an
agreement contained in an exchange of letters, telegrams, telefacsimile or in a communication by teleprinter”
20
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 44- Definitions
21
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 12- Powers of arbitral tribunal

10
 The International Arbitration Act, Singapore (Enforcement Mechanism) in its
Section 27(1)22 states that “Court” means High Court in Singapore wherein an
aggrieved party to an ward can file an appeal. Section 47 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 199623 deals with enforcement of Foreign Award.

d. Institutional Support:
Singapore has established itself as a leading international arbitration center
and has several world-class arbitration institutions, such as the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC) Asia. While India also has a few arbitration institutions,
such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and the
Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), it is not as well-established as Singapore
in this regard.

e. Recognition and enforcement of Foreign Awards

Both laws provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in
accordance with the New York Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. However, the enforcement
provisions in the Singaporean law are generally considered to be more
efficient and effective than those in the Indian law.

Section 29 of International Arbitration Act, Singapore (Enforcement

Mechanism)24 specifically deals with the provisions for the enforcement of
international arbitration awards. This section is based on Article 35 of the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It specifies
that any party who seeks to enforce an international arbitration award in
Singapore may do so by applying to the High Court. Section 29 of the IAA
provides a clear mechanism for the enforcement of international arbitration
awards in Singapore and sets out the grounds on which enforcement may be
refused. This helps to ensure that parties have confidence in the efficacy of

22
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 27(1)- “court” means the General Division of
the High Court in Singapore
23
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 47- Evidence
24
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 29- Recognition and enforcement of foreign
awards

11
 international arbitration and that awards can be effectively enforced in
Singapore.

f. Language
In terms of language requirements, Singapore has no specific requirements for
the language of the arbitration, while India requires that the arbitration
agreement and award be in writing and in an official language of India or in
English. This can be a potential hurdle for parties who wish to use a language
other than English or an official Indian language for their arbitration.

g. Singapore has a reputation for having a highly skilled and diverse pool of
arbitrators, while India has faced criticism for a lack of diversity in its
arbitrator pool and for the tendency of Indian parties to choose arbitrators
based on their nationality or background. However, India has taken steps to
address this issue, such as requiring that arbitrators disclose any potential
conflicts of interest and encouraging the appointment of more women and
non-Indian arbitrators.

IV.3 ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN AWARDS

Enforcement is indicative of recognition, meaning that an award that is recognized
can be enforced. However, there are specific procedures that must be followed by
the party seeking to enforce the award.

The New York Convention is adapted by Singapore as Singapore was one of the
original signatories of the New York convention. The International Arbitration
Act, Singapore (Enforcement Mechanism) recognises and enforces foreign arbitral
award and regulates international commercial arbitration having seat in Singapore
as specified in Section 19 of the International Arbitration Act 25. This section
exclusively applies to awards and their enforcement. This distinctiveness of
Singapore law equates final awards with interim, provisional, or comparable
awards. This section further describes an award as the decision of the arbitral
tribunal and further strives to avoid any argument or confusion on its validity.
Some provisions of this law has also time and again equated interim awards by the
25
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 19- Enforcement of awards

12
 tribunal with that of final award giving strong power to the effectiveness of the
tribunal. Similar provisions are available for domestic proceeding through Section
17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,199626 but no such provisions for Part II
which is applicable to enforcement of foreign awards.

Section 31(5) of the IAA27, which is based on the provisions of the New York
Convention, grants the Singapore courts the discretion to delay or suspend an
application to enforce a foreign award if there is a pending lawsuit in the court of
the seat of arbitration contesting the legality of the foreign arbitration or the
award. This provision also authorizes the court to require the other party, i.e., the
party opposing enforcement, to provide suitable security before permitting any
adjournment or suspension proceedings.

In the Man Diesel case, the High Court of Singapore reaffirmed the discretionary
power of the courts under Section 31(5) of the IAA 28 and rejected a request for
adjournment against an enforcement application, even though there was a lawsuit
pending before a Danish court with jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding,
seeking to set aside the award. The Singapore High Court's reason for refusing to
adjourn the proceedings was that there was a high risk of asset dissipation, and
any delay that would be caused to the award creditor would undermine the entire
arbitration process.

In India under Section 48 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,199629 conditions

for enforcement of foreign awards are envisaged, wherein it is stated that the
enforcement of a foreign award may be refused at the request of the party against
whom the award is invoked on the sufficient proof to the court that :
a. Incapacity of the Parties
b. Insufficient notice of appointment of arbitration or arbitral proceedings
c. That the award deals with a difference that are not contemplated within the
terms of the submissions before the arbitrator
26
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 17- Interim measures ordered by arbitral
tribunal
27
Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A, Section 31-Refusal of Enforcement
28
Ibid
29
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 No. 26 of 1996, Section 48- . Conditions for enforcement of foreign
awards

13
 d. Composition of the arbitral tribunal is not in accordance with the
Arbitration Agreement
Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds out that
the subject-matter is not capable of being settled under the Indian Arbitration Law
or the enforcement of award would be contrary to the public policy of India.

As mentioned under section 31(5) of the IAA, similarly under Indian Arbitration
Law under Section 48, it is mentioned that Court may adjourn the enforcement of
the award on depositing security with the Court.

IV.4 ENFORCEMENT OF DOMESTIC AWARDS

In Singapore, the Arbitration Act 200130 governs and oversees domestic
arbitration proceedings and establishes regulations pertaining to the enforcement
of domestic awards. Section 49 of the Arbitration Act 2001 31 provides appeal
provisions to parties on questions of law related to an award. Parties have the
option to waive their right of appeal through mutual agreement. Additionally,
parties may exclude the requirement for reasons in the award through an
agreement, which would operate as if the parties have waived their right to appeal
under Section 49(2) of the Arbitration Act 200132. This afore- mentioned
provision is not a part of the Indian legislation

Under Indian law, there are no limitations on the grounds for appeal, and parties
have the right to appeal various issues such as interim measures by the court or
tribunal, referring parties to arbitration, setting aside proceedings, and the
jurisdiction of the tribunal. Furthermore, in India, the right to appeal through SLP
(Special Leave Petition) is an independent right available to parties.

Under Singaporean law, parties do not have an automatic right to appeal, and the
court will only grant leave to appeal if it is satisfied of certain prescribed
conditions, such as when a question of law needs to be clarified. In addition to the
prescribed conditions for granting leave to appeal, there is also a time limitation of

30
Arbitration Act, 2001 No.37 of 2001
31
Arbitration Act, 2001 No.37 of 2001, Section 49- Appeal against Award
32
Ibid

14
 28 days within which the appeal must be filed in Singaporean law. Unlike in
India, there is no automatic provision for appeal in Singapore, and the court has
absolute discretion on whether to allow an appeal or not. In India, there are
multiple processes of appeal available to parties, and the right to appeal is
recognized as a constitutional right.

On appeal, the Singaporean court may either confirm, vary, or remit the award to
the tribunal, in whole or in part, for reconsideration in light of the court's
determination, or set aside the award in whole or in part. However, the court will
not exercise its power to set aside the award unless it is convinced that it would be
inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Similar provisions can be found in sub-section 34(4) of the Indian Arbitration Act.

IV.5 COMPARISON OF ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

Enforcement of arbitral awards is a crucial aspect of any arbitration regime, as it

provides parties with the assurance that their awards will be recognized and
enforced in a timely and efficient manner. In this regard, Singapore's enforcement
provisions are considered to be more robust and efficient than India's.

Singapore has been recognized as a leading arbitration hub, with a reputation for
efficiency and reliability in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Singapore's legal
framework for arbitration is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which
provides for a streamlined enforcement process with limited grounds for
challenge.

In contrast, India's enforcement process can be time-consuming and cumbersome,

with frequent challenges to awards on procedural grounds. The Indian courts have
been criticized for their tendency to intervene in arbitral proceedings, which can
lead to delays in the enforcement of awards.

The ruling in BNA vs. BNB 33

reinforces the importance of drafting arbitration
clauses with clarity and precision. The Court of Appeal applied the three-stage test
33
2019 SGCA 84

15
 established in Sulamérica, which involves examining the express and implied
choices of the parties, as well as the closest and most real connection between the
parties and the dispute. The Court rejected the principle of "Validation" and
emphasized the importance of enforcing the parties' actual intent, which must be
clear and not require a strained interpretation of the agreement. The Court also
emphasized that the intention to arbitrate includes the manner in which the
arbitration is to be conducted, such as the place and administration by a particular
institution. While the goal is to give effect to the parties' mutual agreement to
arbitrate, this must be done through an objective assessment of the wording of the
arbitration agreement, subject to any indications to the contrary. Ultimately, the
Court of Appeal concluded that parties must live with the consequences of their
choices, even if the result of the construction process makes the arbitration
agreement unworkable. This highlights the importance of carefully considering all
aspects of an arbitration agreement, including the choice of law and the specific
terms and procedures to be followed, to avoid disputes and ensure a smooth
arbitration process.

In summary, the case of Insigma Technology Co Ltd vs. Alstom Technology Ltd
34
dealt with a challenge to an award passed by a three-member arbitral tribunal in
an arbitration administered by the SIAC applying the ICC Arbitration Rules. The
arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties was an odd mixture of their choices
and expectations, and the challenging issue facing the Court was the interpretation
and enforcement of the arbitration clause and award rendered thereunder
respectively. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the SIAC can in fact
administer an arbitration “under the ICC Rules” given that the ICC Rules specify
steps to be taken by “the Court” which is a reference to the ICC’s International
Court of Arbitration. The Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the clause on a
modified working of the arbitration clause, where the role of the International
Court of Arbitration was performed by the SIAC Board of Directors. While the
arbitration agreement was infused with life by the consensus arrived at by the
arbitral institutions, it is necessary to deliberate the consequences should there
have been a disagreement.

34
2009 SGCA 24

16
 Further, in the case of ST Group Co Ltd vs. Sanum Investments Limited 35, the
Singapore Court of Appeal dealt with a dispute arising from an investment
agreement containing an arbitration clause, which provided for arbitration in
Singapore, with the law of the arbitration agreement being the UNCITRAL Model
Law. However, the tribunal determined that the seat of the arbitration was Macau,
and an award was rendered in favor of Sanum. When Sanum sought to enforce the
award in Singapore, ST Group challenged the award on the basis that the tribunal
had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld ST Group’s challenge and held that the tribunal had
erred in determining the seat of the arbitration. The Court further emphasized the
importance of identifying the seat of the arbitration, as it determines the curial law
that governs the conduct of the arbitration, including the powers of the courts at
the seat to provide support and supervision. The Court stated that the parties’
specific choice of seat under the arbitration agreement must be given due weight
and significance, and the failure to identify the seat of the arbitration could
potentially invalidate the arbitration agreement and the resulting award.

This case highlights the importance of properly drafting and interpreting

arbitration clauses to ensure that the parties’ intentions are clear and unambiguous.
It also underscores the need for parties to carefully consider the implications of
their choice of seat and proper law of the arbitration agreement, as these factors
can significantly impact the validity and enforceability of the resulting award.

V. CONCLUSIONS
In today’s time, for any commercial dispute arising between two parties, arbitration is
considered as a good method for resolving the disputes amicably. The 246th Law Commission
Report have considered the following plethora of judgements and have proposed unique
provisions for smooth resolution of disputes between the parties. The following are
judgements relied upon

35
2022 SGCA 2

17
 i. The Hon’ble Apex Court in F.C.I vs Joginderpal Mohinderpal36 held that, the law of
arbitration should be simple, less technical and more responsible to the realities of the
situations and should serve justice to the parties in dispute.

ii. The Hon’ble Apex Court in D.A. Desai J. in Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan
Singh37, wherein the court stated the importance of alternative dispute mechanisms, as
the Court procedures are interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive

iii. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Singh Builders Syndicate, 38 observed that the
cost of arbitration in ad hoc arbitrations is very high and the parties feel constrained to
agree to the decision of the Arbitrator.

Some of the unique provisions suggested/ recommended in the 246th Law Commission Report
is as follows:
i. Institutional Arbitration : Institutional Arbitration is a specialised institution with a
permanent character that intervenes and assumes the powers to administer a n arbitral
process. These Institutional Arbitration have on their panels qualified arbitrators to
conduct the hearing without the intervention of the Court. Although, the progress of
institutional arbitration is not much in India however, with time some changes have
been suggested in the conduct of Institutional Arbitration which is now been largely
adopted by the parties for resolution of dispute. MCIA , SIAC, etc are some of the
Institutional Arbitrations which have their own rules for a better and smooth conduct
of arbitral proceedings with is expeditious as well as result oriented. It was
recommended in the 246th Law Commission Report that an addition be made to
Explanation 2 to the Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act so that
the Courts can exercise its power under Section11 and encourage parties to refer their
disputes to Institution Arbitration. The 246th Law Commission Report also pointed out
that the Institutional Arbitrations have provisions and recognises “Emergency
Arbitrator”. One of the key features of the Act is the establishment of the International
Commercial Arbitration Centre (ICAC) at New Delhi, which provides administrative
support for arbitrations conducted in India. The Act also provides for the appointment
of a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, depending on the parties' agreement.
36
(1989) 2 SCC 347
37
(1981) 4 SCC 634
38
(2009) 4 SCC 523

18
 ii. Fees: The 246th Law Commission Report also recommended a schedule of fees for
fixation of the Arbitrator’s fees

iii. Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings: The 246th Law Commission Report also
recommended that the arbitral procedure should not be a replica of Court Proceedings.
The Chapter V of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides power to the
Arbitral Tribunal to conduct arbitral proceedings. The 246 th Law Commission Report
also recommended that there should be an end to adjournments that are uncalled for
which was suggested to be incorporated in proviso to the Section 24 (1) of the Act.
The 246th Law Commission Report also recommended that the arbitrators must hear
and decide the matter expeditiously and within a prescribed time frame. The Report
also recommended that the arbitrator’s shall use new technologies and conduct the
proceedings virtually with a help of the video conference

iv. The Report also focuses on the theme that there should be minimum judicial
intervention and restraint and the parties should encourage Institutional Arbitration as
smooth and effective resolution of dispute

India and Singapore have a common law legal system that has been heavily influenced by
English law, which is why we often see similarities in their approach to arbitration. The BNA
case is a good example of this, where the Singapore Court of Appeal applied the three-fold
test from Sulamerica, a well-known English case on determining the proper law of an
arbitration agreement. Similarly, the Indian Supreme Court has also been influenced by
English law, and has applied similar principles in determining the proper law of arbitration
agreements. Overall, both India and Singapore have developed their own unique approach to
arbitration that draws on their legal traditions and the wider international legal landscape.

The Indian and Singaporean courts have been seen to adopt a pro-arbitration approach in
recent years, recognizing the importance of upholding arbitration agreements and giving them
full effect. However, this does not mean that the courts will blindly enforce such agreements
without due regard to the specific terms and requirements of the agreement. Rather, the courts
have been careful to ensure that such agreements are not enforced at all costs and have been
known to adopt a nuanced approach that takes into account the specific terms of the
agreement, as well as any surrounding circumstances and applicable legal principles. In some
19
cases, this may involve giving the arbitration agreement a 'colourable interpretation' to ensure
that it is workable and enforceable, while in others, it may involve refusing to enforce the
agreement if it is found to be in breach of applicable legal or ethical standards. Ultimately,
the goal is to ensure that arbitration agreements are given full effect in a manner that is
consistent with the principles of fairness and justice.

VI. SUGESSTIONS

In my suggestion from the afore-mentioned comparative analysis and study of the topic, I say
that as India is emerging as the centre/ hub of Arbitration, the procedure of conducting
arbitration proceedings must be speedy and effective. Today, India should not only be given a
narrow approach for serving the economic agenda of being a nation that is inexpensive as
compared to the other countries but should also be considered one of the most effective
dispute resolution hub. After studying in detail about the enforcement provisions and the
conduct of arbitral proceedings of the arbitral laws of Singapore, India can adopt ways and
methods and techniques of conducting arbitral proceedings and enforcing them to become a
stronger nation with a great control over the alternative dispute resolution mechanism even
for International Commercial Disputes.

i. Streamline the arbitration process: One of the most important aspects of an effective
arbitration system is efficiency. India could learn from Singapore's streamlined
arbitration process, which includes strict timelines for submissions, early resolution of
procedural issues, and active case management by arbitrators to ensure speedy
resolution of disputes.

ii. Expand the scope of arbitration: Indian arbitration laws could be amended to expand
the scope of disputes that can be resolved through arbitration. Currently, certain types
of disputes, such as those involving public policy issues or criminal matters, are
excluded from arbitration. Singapore, on the other hand, allows parties to arbitrate a
wider range of disputes, including construction and intellectual property disputes.

iii. Provide greater clarity on the role of courts: India could provide greater clarity on the
role of courts in the arbitration process. This would include, for example, establishing

20
 a clear and consistent approach to the interpretation and enforcement of arbitration
agreements and awards.

iv. Enhance confidentiality provisions: Indian arbitration laws could be updated to

include stronger confidentiality provisions, similar to those found in Singapore's
International Arbitration Act. These provisions could help to protect the
confidentiality of arbitration proceedings and awards, which is particularly important
in the case of commercial disputes.

v. Increase focus on training and education: India could invest more in training and
education programs for arbitrators, lawyers, and other stakeholders in the arbitration
process. This could include providing more opportunities for continuing education
and professional development, as well as promoting greater awareness of arbitration
as a viable alternative to traditional litigation.

VII. REFERENCE
i. International Arbitration Act, 2001 No.37 of 2001
ii. Singapore International Arbitration Act, Chapter 143A
iii. Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, 6th Edition, 01st August
2016
iv. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26 of 1996,
v. UNICITRAL Rules
vi. New York Convention 1956

Webliography
i. https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-recent-amendments-india-v-singapore-arbitral-
laws/ last accesed on 12.05.2023 at 4:20 pm
ii. https://siac.org.sg/siac-rules-2016 last accessed on 13.05.2023 at 11:00 am
iii. https://www.mondaq.com/advicecentre/content/3714/International-Commercial-
Arbitrations-Between-Singapore-And-India last accessed on 13.05.2023 at 3:00p

Bibliography

21
 i. Dr. Rajesh Bahuguna and Dr. Vijay Srivastava, Challenges before International
Commercial Arbitration in India and new hope for its improvements, IOSR journal
of Humanities and Social Science, 2017
ii. David Foxton QC and David Joseph QC, Singapore International Arbitration: Law
and Practice, 2nd Edition, LexisNexis, 2018
iii. Stephen York, India as an Arbitration Destination:The Road Ahead, Vo.21,
No.2,JSTOR, 2009 (Page 77 to 103)

22