Articles

Navigating The Effect Of No-Claims Certificates In Construction Contracts by Priyamvada Paneru

In construction contracts, it is commonplace for employers to devise mechanisms to restrict the claims of contractors after the completion of works under the contract. These mechanisms may be clothed in the form of either express terms of the contract or in the form of a separate agreement. In as much as contractual clauses are concerned, works contracts may contain a clause that prohibits the contractor from claiming compensation for claims attributable to either the contractor, the employer or both parties. Generally, these clauses stipulate that where extensions of time are granted due to delays, the contractor cannot seek any compensation on the ground of such delay, apart from time extension. As far as the latter mechanism is concerned, employers may withhold the clearance of final bills unless the contractor submits a ‘no-demand’/ ‘no-claim’ certificate, a settlement agreement, or a discharge voucher signed by contractors. This NCC is used by the employer as an instrument for preventing the contractor from pursuing future claims, predicated on the premise that the NCC serves as acceptance by contract in full accord and satisfaction of the parties to the contract.

Incorporeal Loop of Extension: Analyzing Extension of Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Priyal Bansal and Sanjampreet Singh

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, introduced by the Amending Act of 2015 (effective as of October 23, 2015), was aimed at establishing a timeframe for the conclusion of arbitration procedures. Initially, the arbitral tribunal’s consideration began in the statutory timeframe of twelve months. However, the Amending Act of 2019, which became effective on August 30, 2019, altered the specified time limit. Twelve months from the date when pleadings were concluded, arbitration proceedings are now required to be completed. Additionally, an extension of six months if the award is not passed in the twelve-month window is permitted by mutual agreement of the parties according to sub-Section (3). Sub-section 4 further states that if the award is not passed even in the stipulated eighteen-month mandate (including the extended period), the parties can apply to the court for an extension.

Interim Remedy in India under Section 9: Is it Efficacious enough? by Katyayni Singh

This article discusses three aspects. Firstly, it analyses the application of Section 9 to secure the subject matter or amount of dispute in the case of seat-centric ICA. Secondly, it highlights the interim remedies available before institutions or courts of different jurisdictions. This comparison enables us to understand the issues that remain unaddressed by the domestic law in terms of Section 9. Lastly, it concludes by exploring the available solutions with suggestive changes.

Is the Efficacy of Community Mediation Overly Dependent on Community Dynamics? – A Parallel Drawn with Indian Khap Panchayats by Sriradha Rai Choudhuri

The Mediation Act, 2023 has introduced a new concept of ‘Community Mediation’ through Sections 43 and 44 under Chapter X of the Act. This concept tries to usher community dynamics into alternative dispute resolution practices. The community itself is made a part of the process of resolving community disputes that seek to affect “peace, harmony and tranquility” within the community.  However, in India, community structures for dispute resolution existed even before this Act. Such an example is that of the ‘Khap Panchayats’. Several instances have already suggested how the decisions of the Khap Panchayats have led to more disturbance rather than resolution for the community and the parties involved. The Supreme Court has declared time and again that Khap Panchayats are not legally recognized and should not be given a ‘formal institutional character’. The question, therefore, arises whether a Khap Panchayat-like system can legally emerge through the ‘Community Mediation’ practices. If the answer to this is in positive, subsequently, one needs to analyse whether there should be sufficient safeguards incorporated in these provisions.

Shifting Of Paradigm In Third-Party Participation In Arbitration by Ritika Verma

Certain disputes demand third-party involvement, prompting an assessment of the contributions made by non-signatories or third parties and their shared interest in fulfilling the terms. The matter gains significance in assessing the extent of the third party’s consent to the arbitration agreement. Mere affiliation with a company does not suffice; requiring the non-signatory’s conduct expressly/tacitly indicating agreement with the signatories’ arbitration agreement. If deducible from the circumstances, they can be held liable & be bound by it, irrespective of their non-signatory status. The extension to third parties hinges on their contribution to fulfilling the agreement terms. The legal framework governing the inclusion of third parties in arbitral proceedings & imposing an obligation on them to be bound has substantially evolved, with Indian courts recognizing its necessity. However, the courts also acknowledge the exceptional nature of such inclusion. Drawing from Indian precedents, the study delves into the evolution & implications of mandating non-signatory/third-party impleadment in arbitration.