The judge said that the Indian legal profession was attracting talented young people who might otherwise have opted for careers in medicine or engineering.
Justice Manmohan also said that India had become a credible seat of arbitration following legislative reforms and a change in the approach of courts.
He highlighted the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which narrowed the scope of the public policy grounds for challenging awards and introduced timelines for concluding arbitration proceedings.
The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India while explaining the impact of the amendments on the public policy ground.
“And I think on all three counts, the Indian courts as well as the Indian Parliament are moving in the right direction.”
The judge said that the Indian legal profession was attracting talented young people who might otherwise have opted for careers in medicine or engineering. Such talent had to be put to use, he added.
Justice Manmohan also said that India had become a credible seat of arbitration following legislative reforms and a change in the approach of courts. He highlighted the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which narrowed the scope of the public policy grounds for challenging awards and introduced timelines for concluding arbitration proceedings.
The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India while explaining the impact of the amendments on the public policy ground.
“According to me, today, India is a credible seat of arbitration.”
He said that the suitability of an arbitral seat depended on three factors: how quickly an arbitration could begin, the availability of interim measures and the enforceability of awards.
“And I think on all three counts, the Indian courts as well as the Indian Parliament are moving in the right direction.”
