However, in Natraj Studios Pvt. Navrang Studios,  the Supreme Court held that the arbitral tribunals, which are a substitute to civil courts cannot hear a dispute under the Rent Control Act because the statute provides these rights to be adjudicated in the specialized tribunals only, meaning thereby that certain cases shall not be heard by an arbitral tribunal despite the fact that the decision involves a right in personam, and not a right in rem.
Hence, at this stage it can be concluded that determination of arbitrability in the Indian context would require a two-fold enquiry. At the first stage, it needs to be determined whether the subject matter of the dispute is a right in rem, in which case, the dispute would not be amenable to arbitration. If, however, the dispute involves a right in personam, then the next question to be answered is whether the adjudication of such a dispute is reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy.
An affirmative answer to the second question would imply that arbitration in the subject matter is not permissible. The following section seeks to apply this working formula of arbitrability to competition law matters.
Competition Act, prohibits anticompetitive behavior between market players cartels, price fixing etc. The Competition Act is primarily enforced through the Competition Commission of India which is vested with both regulatory and quasi-judicial powers and the Competition Appellate Tribunal, established to sit in appeal from orders of the CCI; with the Supreme Court serving as the ultimate appellate authority. The only time that the Court was confronted with the issue of arbitration of matters covered under the Competition Act was in Union of India v.http://memeslatino.com/wp-content/map13.php
Competition Commission of India. However it cannot be seen as a blanket denial of arbitration for competition matters. Since there is no authoritative judgment which considers these issues from a public policy perspective, arbitrability of competition law disputes still remains an open question in India. Section 19 1 of the Competition Act empowers any person, consumer or association to file information with the CCI with respect to any alleged contravention of the Competition Act.
Based on this finding of infringement, Section 53N additionally allows third parties affected by anti-competitive conduct to approach the COMPAT and claim compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the anti-competitive conduct. Any order made under Section 19 determining the validity of an agreement or imposing liability on the defaulter would therefore, be an order in rem because an anti-competitive behaviour not only harms the interests of the rival businesses that directly sustain losses but also has an impact on all the consumers, retailers who are forced to pay higher price for the goods.
Since the remedy for a complaint under Section 19 would affect public interest at large i. Even if the right to recover damages requires the arbitral tribunal to make a finding of liability, it would not involve penal consequences but would merely be a step towards establishing a civil monetary claim or any other contractual remedy. This indicates that such an application involves a right in rem which is purely inter parties and does not affect the rights of the third party who are strangers to the arbitral proceedings.
Therefore, the suggestion is that to the extent the Competition Act allows a private remedy, the test of Booz Allen stands satisfied and competition law does involve a right in personam capable of being arbitrated. The court observed that the fact that such persons do not necessarily act in their personal interest highlights the public nature of the remedy under section The difference in language led the Court to conclude that while claims under Section was not arbitrable, section claims could nonetheless be arbitrated.
Using the same rationale, the Federal Court of Appeal in a subsequent judgment held that Section 36 of the Canadian Competition Act is a private claim and arbitration is possible for this civil law aspect of competition law i. CCI is an overarching body to sustain and promote competition within the Indian markets. The Preamble and Section 18 of the Competition Act entrusts the CCI with an obligation to eliminate anti-competitive practices, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade of all market participants.
Section 61 of the Competition Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any competition law matter. Applying the logic of HDFC Bank case, it is amply clear that the CCI was created to adjudicate on special rights created under the Competition Act and the dispute does not arise under the general law of the land contract law, common law etc. This leads us to conclude that the provision setting an exclusive jurisdiction of CCI could perhaps be construed as excluding arbitrability of competition law disputes.
One might argue that Section 61 of the Competition Act cannot preclude arbitration since Section 5 of the Arbitration Act begins with a non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything in any other law, the jurisdiction of the Court is excluded where there is an arbitration agreement. Fortpoint Automotive Pvt. It has to be necessarily juxtaposed with Section 2 3 of the Arbitration Act which states that the provisions of the Arbitration Act will not affect any other law by virtue of which certain disputes cannot be submitted to arbitration.
In light of this judicial interpretation, there is little doubt that the exclusive jurisdiction of CCI restricts the arbitrability of competition law issues in India. On the strength of this analysis, it can be reasonably concluded that given the extant competition and arbitration jurisprudence in India, it is highly unlikely that the Courts would allow arbitration of competition law disputes.
Competition law disputes involve two facets — one is the administrative law aspect of competition law which includes the imposition of public sanctions such as fines for infringement. In fact, administrative aspects of competition law are not considered arbitrable in any jurisdiction in the world due to the public interest involved. Such civil law disputes satisfy the first prong of the arbitrability test since they involve right in personam.
Determining whether competition law disputes should be arbitrable has to be based on the consideration of two policy objectives. On one hand, there is a need to safeguard public interest by reserving sensitive matters for resolution only by national courts and on the other hand, arbitration needs to be promoted as a vibrant system of dispute resolution for imparting certainty and convenience to business transactions.
- Competition And Contests.
- i want to buy a business plan.
- Executive resume writers nyc;
- college writing skills;
- ELI Constitutional Environmental Law Writing Competition: Past Winning Essays.
- Post navigation.
- Arbitrability of Competition Law Issues: An Indian Perspective.
In India, judicial hostility towards arbitration arguably stems from the concern that public interest would be injured if competition law disputes are allowed to be resolved by arbitration. Probably this is what it means to be called as the "Pioneers of moot court competitions in India". He was also concerned about the fact that bright young law graduates were joining the corporate sector, thereby depriving the Bar of a steady flow of good talent.
12222 Gellhorn-Sargentich Law Student Essay Competition Instructions
This prompted Mr. The cases prepared for the competitions are based on either emerging or unsettled areas of law. This requires participants to come up with innovative arguments which in turn helps develop new jurisprudence. There are several new and exciting moots coming up in the year The details of some of these have been released on moot.
Established in Participants gain considerable expertise in the respective domains on which the issues are framed. Established in , to provide Indian law students an opportunity to develop expertise in the area of corporate laws like Companies Act, Taxation domestic and international , Contracts, Foreign Exchange and Investments, Securities Regulations and Corporate Governance.
This moot was conceived with the purpose of creating awareness on the Constitutional Law in a systematic and scientific manner. Established in ,  This competition was conceived as one of its kind, with the aim of promoting skills of trial advocacy. In its 10th successful year , this national moot is by far the most appreciated moot for its innovation and structure. This is a moot where the students of the host institution actively participate as witnesses for the oral rounds.
The top two teams from each of the regional rounds represent India in the International Rounds at Washington. In the event of a single national round, one team for every ten teams registered will be selected to represent India, with a cap of 4 teams at maximum.
Arpitha Kodiveri | European University Institute - wickglycpapgami.cf
NLU Jodhpur won the competition for the first time in the year Conceived to create awareness on the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and to facilitate the evolution of minority rights through the jurisprudential analysis of the existing law and consequential emergence of new law. This moot's theme offers the opportunity for comparative study of the Constitutions and Laws of different countries in the area of minority rights thereby giving participants insights into international jurisprudence on minority rights.
This moot was conceived with the purpose of creating awareness on the Law of Torts in a systematic and scientific manner. In light of the then proposed National Company Law Tribunal finally set up under the Companies Act this moot was initiated in partnership with the Institute of Company Secretaries of India to provide students of the Company Secretary course in nuances of Indian legal system and to hone their advocacy skills.
It aimed to provide a real-life experience cum training in doing cutting-edge research, presenting ground breaking arguments oral and written and contributing to the development of corporate law jurisprudence. The moot helped achieve the above objectives with about teams participating in the 5 years of its tenure between to From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.
Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links , and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. January Learn how and when to remove this template message.