In a relatively recent decision in Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. [Arbitration Case (Civil No. 30 of 2014) dated 16 December 2014], the Supreme Court of India addressed a pathological arbitration clause and referred the parties to arbitration by virtually re-drafting the clause. Although the parties agreed in their arbitration clause for arbitration under the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Chamber of Commerce was not an arbitral institution having Rules for appointment of arbitrators. The Supreme Court held that the most reasonable construction of the said clause was that the reference was actually to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. This decision reflects a pro-arbitration approach that has been the feature of arbitration in India since 2012.

A short paper of this blawgger evaluates this decision.

First published here.

Original author: Badrinath Srinivasan

Comments

anon 16 May 2015, 13:57
+0 -0
Team Percy. Congrats.
arbitrator 16 May 2015, 16:36
+0 -0
Please note that the order being referred to is not to be taken as a judicial precedent as stated in the order itself
REQUEST 17 May 2015, 17:29
+0 -0
Kian, your website is a mess. It is just badly organized. I don't feel like reading it. its not abt adds. its just not clear and readable. things are not organized. please don't feel bad. I started reading it way back in 12th std. today I am in 5 th year. plz plz don't do this to this site. YOU NEED A PROPER TEMPLATE or something to make it worth reading. Like nowdays I just read the articles in the feed.
kianganz 17 May 2015, 19:25
+0 -0
Ok, thanks for your feedback. Where are you reading it? On desktop, mobile or tablet?

However, I do hope that the main thing that makes LI worth reading isn't the template but our content (though a nice look is certainly icing on the cake).

Also don't mind for you to read articles in the RSS feed - that's what it's there for. Also, if you have an Android phone it may be worth checking out our app in the Play Store, which is easier to read but a bit more plain, looks wise and lacking in some functionality such as comments...
Practical Academic 18 May 2015, 01:01
+0 -0
Arbitrator, where does it state in the judgement that it is not to be taken as a precedent? Merely because it is classified as unreportable?