Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the legislative structure of Indian arbitration with that of Singapore with special focus on the enforcement provisions. The objective of the author is to find out whether the legislative improvements introduced through 2015 and 2019 amendments to Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were sufficient to elevate the Indian legislation to global standard. This objective has been achieved through a comparative analysis of Indian Act with the provisions of Singapore's International Arbitration Act, 1994 and Arbitration Act, 2002 with their latest amendments. The two amendments to Indian Arbitration Act have been successful in removing many of the loopholes and lacunae associated with it. But there are some parts related to enforcement issues involving both domestic and foreign awards and equating the interim awards of the arbitration panel with that of final awards where the Indian legislation needs improvement. Equating interim measures/awards with that of final awards allows the courts to use the provisions of New York Convention and enforce it against the erring party. This gives legitimacy to the arbitration process and reposes the faith of parties in the arbitration regime of the country. Under Singapore provisions there is no right of appeal and appeal is the discretion of the High Court. Multiple appeal mechanisms in Indian system during enforcement proceedings lead to enormous delay in  the whole arbitration process forcing foreign parties to refuse arbitration in India.  These are very novel provisions and Indian law should incorporate similar provisions