The law, in its .present form, recognizes situations where the intervention of the Court is envisaged at the pre-arbitral stage, i.e. prior to the constitution .of the arbitral tribunal. The Courts .in India had the occasion to deliberate upon the nature and scope of permissible pre-arbitral judicial intervention and the Supreme Court has ruled .in favour of dealing with the .issue prima facie. If the judicial authority is of the opinion that prima facie., there exists a valid arbitration agreement, then it shall refer the dispute to arbitration, and leave the existence .of valid arbitration agreement to be finally determined by the arbitral tribunal. However, if the judicial authority concludes that the .agreement does not exist, then the …show more content…
When parties choose .to proceed with .ad hoc arbitration, .the parties have the .choice of drafting their .own rules (most referred is the UNCITRAL Rules) and procedures .which fit their needs, as per the .nature of the dispute. Institutional arbitration, .on the other hand, is one in which .a specialized institution with a permanent character intervenes and assumes the functions .of aiding and administering .the arbitral process, as provided by the rules .of such institution.. Basically, the .contours and the procedures of the arbitral proceedings are .determined by the .institution designated by the .parties. Such institutions may also provide qualified arbitrators empanelled with .the institution. As a result of .the structured process and .administrative support provided .by institutional arbitration, it provides .distinct advantages, which are .unavailable to parties opting .for ad hoc arbitration. .Taking into consideration, the mentioned advantages, Law Commission of .India has suggested promotion .of institutional arbitration by recommending appropriate .proposals which it .hopes will be used .by the Supreme Court and High .Courts to promote institutional arbitration.. It proposes further, .to accord legislative .sanction to institutions .such as ICC (International Chamber of .Commerce, International .Court of Arbitration) .and SIAC . (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) .which provide for ".Emergency Arbitrator." by broadening the definition of "Arbitral Tribunal". The Commission has further discussed idea of having an Arbitral Commission .of India (with representation from all the stakeholders of arbitration) which would, inter-alia, .encourage the spreading .of institutional arbitration in India. .The recommendations made by the Law Commission relating to institutional arbitration, however .does not find any mention in the .Ordinance making amendments to the 1996
The employer alleged that the arbitrator went beyond his authority in shielding the award. The trial court settled the award, and the Court of Appeals held that the employer could not justify its complaints citing the Hall Street opinion. 3. Issue for the court to decide: Does policies include an arbitration clause? In arbitration is that going to continue be
Role of the Courts Firstly, the coroner’s court investigated the deaths of the accused’s family. The case was then heard in the local court. Due to the fact that the case was an indictable offence, the local court could not finalise the verdict. Therefore, the local court conducted a committal hearing, where the magistrate was to determine whether the prosecution evidence is capable of satisfying a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.
A decision of an administrative body may be set aside on the basis that it is irrational or possibly disproportionate. Conventional judicial review procedure is governed by Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to 2011, which includes amendments made by SI 691 0f 2011: Rules of the Superior Court (Judicial Review) 2011.
The parties decide what evidence to present, what witnesses to call, and how to question them. The judge is to be a neutral during the process and uphold the principles of fairness and equality, although he does make determinations of fact and law. The adversarial system is usually found in places with a common law system. In an inquisitorial hearing, the judge has a more prominent and active role in regards to evidence and questioning the witnesses. The inquisitorial system is typically found in places with a civil law system.
Australia being one of those nations has formed an agency call Australian Law Reform Commission, whose purpose is
Conclusion In conclusion, the arbitrator exceeded his/her powers and failed to use them to make a mutual, final, and definite award for the case of de la Graza. According to the textbook, “arbitrator does not need to follow any previous cases in rendering their decisions.” Therefore, the court shall set aside this
Issue 6- Does the Act violate the Procedural Due Process? Conclusion 1.
The court structure in the United States is comprised of a dual court system. The dual court system consists of “one system of state and local courts and another system of federal courts” (Bohm & Haley, 2011, p. 274). Although the system has a separate court system for state and federal court, they do connect in the United States Supreme Court. Each court has various levels of jurisdiction to hear and make decisions over cases (Bohm & Haley, 2011).
In the U.S. criminal justice system, there are two basic sentencing models that the courts use to apply their judgments. These are determinate sentencing and indeterminate sentencing. Determinate sentencing can be referred as a set sentence imposed to an offender this model is based on the famous phrase “Do the crime and will do the time”; however, this model has a unique quality and that is that a parole board can’t overturn the length of the sentence that was imposed. On the other hand indeterminate sentencing can be describe as the length of a sentences that has not being defined yet like the term “25 to life” on this term you can see that the sentencing was not set to an specific time frame, that means that the offenders release date is
The two parties have full control of the proceedings and are responsible for the preparation of their case and the presentation, this allows the parties to feel satisfied
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24889133. Institutions are defined in two ways; one, being an influential organization and two, being the rules that define law. The source explains many definitions to help the reader develop a better understanding of the topic at hand; which I find very helpful for obtaining a greater
These are the roles that the police, courts, and courrections played in the case. Now I will go into more detail explaining the roles with key facts about the case.
A dispute that might otherwise go to court becomes subject to binding arbitration only by the agreement of the parties. In this sense, arbitration is a creature of contract, and the terms of the parties’ particular arbitration agreement are generally controlling. Private arbitration is now governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. The Arbitration (International Commercial) Act 1998 introduced the UNCITRAL Model Law as the procedural framework for international arbitrations. Many commercial contracts include what is known as a Scott v Avery clause, whereby parties agree that in the event of a dispute arising between them, they will resort to arbitration to settle the dispute.
Precedents have a great importance in court’s decision. • Legal Sources: They are known as the instrument through which legal rules, law or principles are established: Legislature: Legislature is an essential part of state established by the parliament consisting of elected officials. Members of parliament present the bill which after thorough discussion approve or reject it. If the bill is approved from parliament, then senates looks through it and approve it with consultation, and it becomes an act. All the acts passed by governing authority can be challenged through judicial
In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also