In a contract between an Indian resident and a non-resident, Indian parties may be asked to discuss the adequacy of two-tier arbitration clauses. It is unlikely that the local party will accept India`s arbitration. In such a case, in the case of foreign arbitration, Part II of the 1996 Arbitration Act would govern its application. Moreover, the illegality of patents, as a result of the amendments to the 2015 law, is no longer a reason to refuse to impose a foreign distinction and the threshold for challenging enforcement has been raised to the fundamental policy of Indian law. (7) Two-step arbitration clauses or appeal arbitration mechanisms were upheld by a three-judge bank of the Supreme Court of Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc. against Hindustan Copper Limited. (1) The Supreme Court has held that a two-stage arbitration proceeding between the parties is permitted by Indian law and therefore I believe that the parties have the right to decide their own system until it is not contrary to Indian law, so the validity of two-stage arbitration in India is correct. However, the appeal of arbitration awards is not an unknown concept. There is broad support for the practice of arbitration to appeal to another arbitral tribunal. This issue was also discussed during the development of the UNCLOS model law and, while considering the recognition of appeal arbitration clauses, the report of the Working Group on International Contract Practices on the work of its third session (of which India was a member) indicated that the series of judgments of the Supreme Court of India , known as the “centrotrade saga,” eventually resulted in a three-judge decision of the Supreme Court of India at Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v.

Hindustan Co Ltd. (Centrotrade – III).1 In the Supreme Court decision of Centrotrade Minerals – Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2017) (Centrotrade – II),2, the basis was laid for the application of a foreign arbitration award under a two-tiered arbitration structure. The “Centrotrade Saga”, as made public in India, concerns a dispute between Centrotrade and HCL over the sale of copper concentrates to them for delivery to the port of Khandla, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in December 1998-January 1999. The parties disagreed on the correct weight of the material delivered and therefore on the purchase price. The agreement between the parties provided (in paragraph 14) for an arbitration resolution of disputes, with the possibility of two steps. The first stage of “two-tier” arbitration was a “first instance” procedure in India under the rules of the Indian Arbitration Council. The agreement also provided that any party that did not agree with the outcome of this procedure had the right to initiate arbitration proceedings in London in accordance with the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (Similar two-step arbitration was frequently used in international trade in raw materials at that time.) However, I think there should be a two-tiered dispute resolution system, as well as a multi-stage compromise clause, which, if readily agreed, provides foolproof facilitation mechanisms and also assures the courts that all avenues were considered before the arbitration clause was used. When verifying the validity of the two-step compromise clause, the following questions are necessary to advise: If one of the parties does not agree with the outcome of the arbitration in India, each party will have the right to incriminate itself in a second arbitration procedure in London, United Kingdom, in accordance with the conciliation and arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce in force on the day of the International Chamber of Commerce.

, and the results of this second arbitration will be binding on both parties.