Cost of Arbitration: Indian Law & English Law

Cost of Arbitration: Indian Law & English Law

1 | P a g e

RAIPUR, CHATTISGARH

A PROJECT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ON


Submitted to:

Dr. Swati Mehta

Date of submission: 6/03/2013

Submitted by:

Govinda yadav

Semester VIth

Roll no. : 50

Section: A (Political Science Major)


2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5

Cost of Arbitration in India ............................................................................................................. 6

Statutory provision ...................................................................................................................... 7

Meaning of Word Cost ................................................................................................................ 7

1) Cost of the Award ............................................................................................................ 8

2) Cost of the reference ........................................................................................................ 8

Party Autonomy .......................................................................................................................... 8

Fixation of the fees of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice is not binding .................................... 9

Cost of arbitration in England ....................................................................................................... 10

Liability for costs ...................................................................................................................... 11

factors that affect the cost of arbitration .................................................................................... 12

Cost of Arbitration: UK vs. India ................................................................................................. 12

Arbitration –is it really cheap ....................................................................................................... 13

RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................ 14

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 16


3 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank our course teacher Dr. Swati Mehta, Faculty, Political

Science, HNLU, for allotting me this topic to work on and whose help and assistance enabled me

to move ahead with this topic.

I would like to thank my friends, who gave me their precious time for guidance and helped me a

lot in completing my project by giving their helpful suggestion and assistance. I would like to

thanks my seniors for their valuable support. Last, but not the least I thank the University

Administration for equipping the University with such good library and I.T. facilities, without

which, no doubt this work would not have taken this shape in correct time .

GOVINDA YADAV


4 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Litigation has been the traditional method of settling disputes, including disputes arising both

from domestic and international commercial transactions. Before the inception and development

of arbitration, litigation has been the only formal way of resolving disputes when two or more

interests are in disagreement. Like the equity in the traditional English legal system which came

as a peace meal to harness the harshness and rigidity of the common law, so was arbitration to

litigation. Arbitration is a consensual method of settling disputes which was seen to have more

advantages and more desirable characteristics than litigation especially in business transactions

that have crossed borders and involving huge capital. Though in some cases arbitration is seen to

have certain similarities with litigation, one of the areas where arbitration has been widely

acknowledged to have outwitted litigation is the areas of cost.

The government of India enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in an effort to

modernize the outdated Act of 1940. The present Act of 1996 was modeled on the lines of the

UNCITRAL Model Law. The primary purpose of this Act was to encourage arbitration as a cost-

effective and quick mechanism for the settlement of commercial disputes. The 1996 Act covers

both domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration.

The 'object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal

without unnecessary delay and expense'.1 While most arbitration specialists will readily agree

that increasing costs in arbitration is a serious concern and that cost effectiveness is a desirable

goal, insufficient work has been done in the past to address these issues. Discussion has tended to

centre on fees of the arbitrators and of the arbitral institutions, without focusing on the

underlying causes for the high cost of arbitration proceedings.2

There was no specific provision in the Arbitration Act 1940, with respect to awarding costs by

the arbitral tribunal. The cost used to be awarded on the general principle of law. Even in

UNCITRAL Model law, there is no provision for awarding costs. However, the English

Arbitration Act 1996 contains in Sec. 59 to Sec. 65, an elaborate code relating to costs.3 Article

38 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules requires the arbitral tribunal to fix the costs of

1 David Hacking, Michael E Schneider, towards -More cost-Effective Arbitration 1 (March 4th, 2012). 2 Ibid. 3 MUSTILL AND BOYD, COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 1652-53 (12th ed. 2001) .


5 | P a g e

arbitration in its award and defines the term „costs‟.4 Likewise, Art. 31 of the ICC Rules of

Arbitration 1998 provides for decision by the arbitrator as to the costs of arbitration. besides,

there are AAA Rules, ICIA rules and WIPO rules, which authorize the arbitral tribunal to fix the

cost of arbitration.

OBJECTIVES

1. To study the rules relating to the cost of arbitration in India;

2. To study the rules relating to the cost of arbitration in English legal system.

3. To critically analyze whether arbitration in India and England is really cost-effective.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Nature of research work: This project “Cost of Arbitration: Indian Law & English Law” is a

“Doctrinal” work. Doctrinal research includes studying books and established literature and not

actually going to the field and doing empirical research.

Source of research work: The sources of this project are both primary (bare acts, statutes, etc)

and secondary sources (books given by different authors, journals, internet, etc).

4 The term 'costs' includes only:

(a) The fees of the arbitral tribunal co be stated separately as co each arbitrator and to be fixed by the tribunal itself

in accordance with art 39;

(b) The travel and other expenses incurred by the arbitrators;

(c) The costs of expert advice and of other assistance required by the arbitral tribunal;

(d) The travel and other expenses of witnesses to the extent such expenses are approved by the arbirra1 tribunal;

(e) The costs for legal representation and assistance of the successful party if such costs were claimed during the

arbitral proceedings and only to the extent th.lt the arbitral tribunal determines that the amount of such costs is

reasonable;

(f) Any fees and expenses of the appointing authority as well as the expenses of the Secretary-General of the

Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hugue.


6 | P a g e

COST OF ARBITRATION IN INDIA

Arbitration is generally considered cheaper over traditional litigation, and is one of the reasons

for parties to resort to it. However, the ground realities show that arbitration in India, particularly

ad hoc arbitration, is becoming quite expensive vis-à-vis traditional litigation. A cost analysis on

arbitration vis-à-vis litigation will throw light on the higher cost of arbitration over litigation.

This is a crucial factor which weighs against developing a cost effective quality arbitration

practice in India.5

The Cost of Arbitration incurred by the parties may include the arbitrator‟s fees, rent for

arbitration venues, administrative/clerical expenses, and professional fees for the representatives

of the parties (which may include lawyers and expert witnesses). The sum of these fees may

differ significantly between ad hoc and institutional arbitrations. There is no regulated fee

structure for arbitrators in an ad hoc arbitration. The arbitrator‟s fees are decided by the arbitrator

with the consent of the parties.

The fee varies approximately from INR 1000.00 to INR 50,000.00 per hearing for an arbitrator,

depending upon the professional standing of the arbitrator and the size of the claim. The number

of hearings required and the cost of the arbitral venue vary widely. In contrast, most institutional

arbitration bodies in India, such as the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) or the Construction

Industry Arbitration Council (CIAC), have their own schedules for arbitrators‟ fees and

administrative fees, based on claim amounts. They also charge a nominal non-refundable

registration fee on the basis of the claim amount. For example, the ICA‟s arbitrators‟ fees vary

from INR 30,000.00 to INR 315,000.00 for claim amounts upto INR 10,000,000.00, while

administrative fees vary from INR 15,000.00 to INR 160,000.00 for claim amounts upto INR

10,000,000.00. For the CIAC, the arbitrators‟ fees varies from INR 5,000.00 to INR 260,000.00

per arbitrator for claim amounts upto INR 100,000,000.00, and administrative fees varies from

INR 2,750.00 to INR 62,000.00 for claim amounts upto INR 100,000,000.00.6

5 O.P.MALHOTRA, LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION 1038 (2nd ed., 2006).

6 Momota Oinam, Angshuman Kaushik, Development and Practice of Arbitration in India –Has it Evolved as an

Effective Legal Institution (Mar. 3rd, 2013)

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22693/No_103_Sarma_India_Arbitration_India_509.pdf


7 | P a g e

Statutory provision

Sub-section (8) of Section 31 provides, for payment of costs. It provides that the costs of

Arbitration shall be fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal and it shall be specified, as to the party entitled

to such costs and the party who shall pay the costs as well as amount of costs and method of

determination of costs and the manner of the payment. For payment of costs, following

provisions have been made in sub-section (8): (i) The costs of arbitration shall be fixed by the

arbitral tribunal;

(ii) The arbitrator shall specify the party liable to pay the costs and the party entitled to such

costs;

(iii) The amount of costs and the method of determination of such costs;

(iv) The order shall also provide the manner of payment of costs.

The Explanation appended to subsection (8) provides that for the purposes of clause (a) of the

sub· section the costs mean reasonable costs and relate to the following items:

(i) The fees and expenses of the arbitrators and witnesses;

(ii) Legal fees and expenses;

(iii) Administration fees of the institution, if any; and arbitral

(iv) Other expenses incurred in connection with proceedings and the arbitral award.

Prior to the 1996 Act the arbitrators had powers and jurisdiction to award costs of the

litigation. As the CPC was made applicable vide Section 41 of 1940 Act, the arbitrators and the

Courts dealing with the arbitration matters applied the principles incorporated in that code for the

grant of costs. Even in the absence of statutory provisions, the costs being the incident of

litigation were awarded by the arbitrators. Regarding costs Russell has stated “a distinction has

traditionally been drawn between costs of the reference and costs of the award, the former being

in broad terms the costs incurred by the parties in putting their respective cases in the arbitration

and the latter being the administration costs in the arbitration and the latter being the

administrative costs of the reference, including the tribunal‟s fees”.7

Meaning of Word Cost

Costs are the expenses incurred by a party in prosecuting or defending a cause before the

arbitrator or the Court. The normal rule is that the costs are allowed to the successful party; the

7 Russell on Arbitration, 21st Edition page 155 ¶ 6


8 | P a g e

costs are awarded to compensate a successful party and are not a bonus to it or a punishment to a

losing party.8

This Act uses the compendious phrase „Cost of an arbitration‟ comprehending both the 'costs of

the award' as well as „Cost of the reference‟.

1) Cost of the Award

The costs of the award are the expenses incurred for setting up and administration of the

arbitration. By and large, these expenses are incurred for payment of the fees and expenses of the

arbitrator and witness. They also include any other expenses incurred in connection with the

arbitral proceedings and the arbitral award. These are termed as the „costs of the award‟ and are

tribunal related costs.

2) Cost of the reference

The „Cost of the reference‟ comprise of the expenses incurred for legal fees payable by the

parties to their lawyers, other professionals and experts. They also include any fee payable to an

arbitral institution for administration and supervision of the arbitration. These are the expenses

incurred by the parties for the preparation and presentation of their respective cases before the

tribunal, generally termed as costs of the reference. These are party related costs.

It is relevant to note that the arbitral tribunal can ward costs only in respect of the

proceedings arising out of the terms of the agreement, or arising out of the matter submitted to

arbitration, In "other words it has no jurisdiction to award costs in respect of the proceedings

which do not arise out of the terms of the agreement or which are not a matter of submission to

the arbitration.9

Party Autonomy

The parties are at liberty to agree upon the quantum, apportionment and determination of the

mode and manner of payment of costs. An agreement between the parties with respect to

payment of costs, even if not communicated to the tribunal, will prevail over the award ordering

that each party should bear his own cost.10

In ad hoc arbitration, the parties may include the

mode and manner of assessment and payment of cost of arbitration, which may either be

8 Anandfi Haridas v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 Guj 140. 9 Re Walker and Brown [1882] 9 QBD 434. 10 Masfield v. Robinson [1928] 2 KB 353.


9 | P a g e

included in the arbitration clause or even in the submission agreement. However, if the

administration of the arbitration is entrusted to an arbitral institution, the problems relating to

such arbitration will be dealt with according to the rules of the institution. Section 31(8) provides

that in the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the costs of arbitration

shall be fixed by the „arbitral tribunal‟. Accordingly, the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the

costs on such basis as it thinks fit. However, it must specify:

(i) The party entitled to costs;

(ii) The party who shall pay the costs;

(iii) The amount of costs or method of determining that amount, and

(iy) The manner in which the costs shall be paid.

The arbitral tribunal has the discretion to award the cost of arbitration as between the parties,

albeit, subject to agreement by the parties to the contrary the discretion exercised by the arbitral

tribunal is not amenable to interference by the court,11

merely because the court would itself have

exercised that jurisdiction differently.12

Fixation of the fees of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice is not binding

Ordinarily the fee of the arbitrator should be fixed by an agreement between the parties and the

arbitrator. Such an agreement should preferably in writing.13

Even where no agreement is

Arrived at between the parties and the arbitrator, the arbitral tribunal has the power and

jurisdiction to fix his fees preferably with the consent of the parties and refused to work without

being paid such fee. Even if his fee is not paid, the same can be recovered in execution

proceedings under Section 36 of the Act. in a case where at the time of appointment of the

arbitrator by the Chief Justice or his nominee, if the fee of the arbitrator is fixed, there is no bar

for the arbitrator to fix his own fee thereafter particularly with the consent of the parties. The fees

so fixed by the arbitrator shall be the fees for the purpose of explanation to sub-section (8) of

Section 31 . In a case where the fee of the arbitrator was fixed initially at Rs. 30,000/· by the

designate of the Chief Justice, the learned arbitrator during the proceeding fixed his fee after

consulting the parties at Rs. 2 lakhs which was to be shared by both sides equally. Aggrieved by

the action of the arbitrator in fixing his fee one of the parties thereafter filed a petition in the

11 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S 34. 12 Channel Islnad Ferries Ltd v. Cenargo Navigation Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd‟s Rep. 161. 13 Jeevan Industries Pvt Ltd v. Haji Bashiruddin Madhusudan Dayal, AIR 1975 Del. 215.


10 | P a g e

High Court with a prayer setting aside the same. After refering to various provisions of the Act

and the judicial pronouncements on the point the Court held, "a close reading of the said sub-

section (8) makes it clear that it does not, in arty manner, empower the Chief Justice or his

designate to fix the remuneration of the arbitrator, but only specifies the factors to which they

should have due regard for securing the appointment of a qualified, independent and impartial

arbitrator.

COST OF ARBITRATION IN ENGLAND

Arbitration was, in times long past, much vaunted as being quicker, cheaper and more informal

than litigation. But, until the Act of 1996 at least, much arbitration had become as expensive (if

not more so) and as lengthy and formal as litigation.14

Its conduct is adversarial in nature,

frequently conducted by lawyers trained for litigation, who were wont to handle the arbitration in

like manner to litigation, both in its preparation and in the advocacy. Its potential to be the more

expensive of the two options lies in the additional layers of expense that have to be catered for.

In addition to the parties‟ legal costs there are the fees and expenses of one or more arbitrators

that have to be paid; the cost of hiring a venue for interim and main hearings has also to be taken

into account, as do the administration costs of any governing institution such as the ICC. Since

most arbitrators are also in practice on their own account within their own areas of expertise,

hearing dates can be troublesome to obtain and awards can be some time in the gestation process.

There are a number of tools provided by the Act of 1996 by which the parties may tailor their

arbitration to provide cheaper and speedier results than hitherto may have been the case, as well

as powers given to the arbitrator.

The objective must be to achieve what the parties will accept as being value for money. The

parties can agree how the costs will be borne. However, any agreement that one party is to pay

the whole or part of the costs of the arbitration in any event is only valid if made after the dispute

has arisen (section 60, the Act). In the absence of any agreement, section 61 of the Act indicates

that the tribunal can make an award allocating the costs between the parties. This is done on the

general principle that costs should follow the event (meaning that the unsuccessful party pays the

14 RICHARD GRAY QC AND BRUCE BRODIE, AFFORDABLE ARBITRATION AND THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


11 | P a g e

successful party's costs), except in cases where it would be inappropriate to do so. Awarded costs

usually include:

1. The arbitrator's fees and expenses.

2. The costs of supervision by any arbitral institution.

3. The costs of the parties' counsel and their expenses such as venue, travel, translations,

and so on.

In the absence of the parties' agreement as to costs, the tribunal can determine its own costs and

expenses. Under section 63 of the Act, it must specify the basis on which it has acted and the

items of recoverable costs and the amount referable to each. If the tribunal fails to determine the

recoverable costs of the arbitration, either party can apply to the court. The tribunal also has the

power to limit recoverable costs (section 65, the Act).

Liability for costs

In English court proceedings there has been a long established principle that 'costs should follow

the event'. However, there is now a significant movement for this principle to be diluted. In his

recent Reports to the English Lord Chancellor, Lord Woolf has advised that: ' ... the general rule

that costs should follow the event should be relaxed so that the court can use to the full its very

wide discretion over costs to support the conduct of litigation in a proportionate manner and to

discourage excess'. This advice is all part of the wider recommendation of Lord Woolf: 'that

courts should pay greater regard than they do at present to the manner in which the successful

party has conducted the proceedings and the outcome of individual issues'. Actually the English

rule of 'costs following the event' has never been a rule under which the winner recovers his costs

in all circumstances from the loser. On the contrary the test is not simply whether a party has

won or lost the case but how successful it has been in the overall outcome of it. Unless the

parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should

follow the event except where it appears to the tribunal that in the circumstances this is not

appropriate in relation to the whole or part of the costs.15

15 Sec 61(2) of Arbitration Act, 1996.


12 | P a g e

Factors that affect the cost of arbitration

To determine totally the cost of arbitration or whether a particular arbitration process is

expensive or cheap as compared to litigation, many factors are always considered. These factors

include the rules that govern such arbitration, the weight of the case involved, the cost of

initiating the arbitration and the type of hearing requested by the parties. The number of

arbitrators the parties put on request and also issues such as the status of the parties, (whether the

party is either an individual or a business entity) the terms of the agreement as well as whether

the parties requested extra arbitrators are always considered.16

Apart from the factors enumerated

above, the cost of arbitral forum which is not seen in litigation and sometimes ignored is another

factor that affects the cost of arbitration.17

Disputes requiring the knowledge of an expert or

expert witness will increase the cost of arbitration. Incidental cost may also arise as the

arbitration process progresses. Arbitration taking long duration to decide will also affect the cost

because of the hourly rate of charge by the arbitrators. The major factors that affect the cost of

arbitration will be discussed below.

COST OF ARBITRATION: UK VS. INDIA

The objective of avoiding 'unnecessary delay and expense', which the 1996 Act expresses in its

opening section, is buttressed by imposing duties on the arbitral tribunal and the parties. On the

former the arbitral tribunal is under a duty to:

(a) Act fairly and impartially between the parties giving each party a reasonable opportunity of

putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent, and

(b) Adopt procedure suitable in the circumstances of the particular case, avoiding unnecessary

delay and expenses, so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters following to be

determined.'18

In other words, arbitrators need not accept whatever procedural device a party claims necessary

for the presentation of its case; indeed they have a positive duty to avoid unnecessary delay or

expense. Compared to the 'hands-off' manner which many arbitrators -and not only in the

16 National Arbitration forum

http//www.adrforum.com/faq.aspx?faq=890. 17 Gary .G. Weight, cost of arbitration as caregully as the cost of a trial. Potland business Journal. 18 Section 33 English Arbitration Act 1996.


13 | P a g e

common law world - today adopt in the conduct of international proceedings, the principle

expressed in the 1996 Act is truly revolutionary.

In India the cost of arbitration is dependent on the agreement between the parties and if the party

agrees to some procedure to be adopted which is more costly then the arbitral tribunal can‟t do

anything and they do not have the discretion to reject the procedure so as to make the arbitration

cheaper.

ARBITRATION –IS IT REALLY CHEAP

Although arbitration is considered to be a cheaper mechanism for the settlement of disputes,

there is a growing concern in India that arbitration has become a costly affair due to the high fee

of the arbitrators and liberal adjournments.19

This is particularly true for ad hoc arbitrations.

Arbitration is more cost-effective than litigation only if the number of arbitration proceedings is

limited. The prevalent procedure before the arbitrators is as follows - at the first hearing, the

claimant is directed to file his claim statement and documents in support thereof; at the second

hearing, the opposing parties are directed to file their reply and documents; at the third hearing,

the claimant files his rejoinder. At each of these stages, there are usually at least two or three

adjournments. Sometimes, applications for interim directions are also filed by either party, which

increases the number of arbitration sittings for deciding such interim applications. The first

occasion for considering any question of jurisdiction does not normally arise until the arbitral

tribunal has issued at least six adjournments.20

If the respondent is the State or a public sector

undertaking, the number of adjournments is higher as it takes more time for these parties in

internally finalizing pleadings and documents that are to be filed before the arbitral tribunal.

Parties pay a fee to the arbitrators for each hearing and thus spend a substantial amount of

money.21

This is in addition to the other costs involved. In contrast, law suits, if admitted, are

certainly cheaper, even though they take substantial amounts of time to resolve. This is because

lawyers‟ fees are the only major expenditure in litigation, and lawyers usually charge the same, if

not more, as per litigation hearing.

19 Samar Bhoite, „Mediation, a process less practiced in India in Business Disputes Resolution‟ published in

the website www.manupatra.com. 20 Law Commission of India, 176th Report on Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2001 at p 68. 21 ibid.


14 | P a g e

RECOMMENDATION

This research paper has looked into those cost that triggers increase in arbitration and makes it

seem as expensive as litigation. One can say arbitration is not a cheap alternative to litigation in

as much as it is not more expensive than litigation. There are both expensive and inexpensive

arbitration as well as there are both expensive and inexpensive litigation. Despite the increasing

expense in arbitration, a huge percentage of international corporations and governments doing

international transactions still choose arbitration as their favorite means of settling disputes

especially international commercial disputes involving huge capital. This is because of other

features associated with arbitration including a reliable method of enforceability of awards.

Arbitration though has been used for decades now is still under development and the future is

bright. A good recommendation for arbitration will be for a development of a mechanism to

reduce the increasing extra cost associated with the process.

Also parties in international business transaction who intend to enter into the international

business and at the stage of negotiating the business contract should be able to make a reasonable

research on the choice of the arbitration institution or body which they intend to favour in their

pre- dispute clauses. This will help them to access the cost of a specific arbitration institution and

the procedures rather than being locked by the clause to a specific arbitration agreed on the

contract when eventually dispute arises and the cost of such arbitration becomes very expensive.

Such research will help compare cost and be able to opt for the cost they can afford. Also extra

expense associated with arbitration which is not seen in litigation has to be amended.


15 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

Arbitration is generally considered cheaper over traditional litigation, and is one of the reasons

for parties to resort to it. However, the ground realities show that arbitration in India, particularly

ad hoc arbitration, is becoming quite expensive vis-à-vis traditional litigation. A cost analysis on

arbitration vis-à-vis litigation will throw light on the higher cost of arbitration over litigation.

This is a crucial factor which weighs against developing a cost effective quality arbitration

practice in India.

The Cost of Arbitration incurred by the parties may include the arbitrator‟s fees, rent for

arbitration venues, administrative/clerical expenses, and professional fees for the representatives

of the parties (which may include lawyers and expert witnesses).

To determine totally the cost of arbitration or whether a particular arbitration process is

expensive or cheap as compared to litigation, many factors are always considered. These factors

include the rules that govern such arbitration, the weight of the case involved, the cost of

initiating the arbitration and the type of hearing requested by the parties. The number of

arbitrators the parties put on request and also issues such as the status of the parties, (whether the

party is either an individual or a business entity) the terms of the agreement as well as whether

the parties requested extra arbitrators are always considered.

While most arbitration specialists will readily agree that increasing costs in arbitration is a

serious concern and that cost effectiveness is a desirable goal, insufficient work has been done in

the past to address these issues. Discussion has tended to centre on fees of the arbitrators and of

the arbitral institutions, without focusing on the underlying causes for the high cost of arbitration

proceedings. Some recent legislative enactments and the revisions in the principal rules for

institutional arbitration are moving in the right direction. Powers of the arbitrators have been

strengthened and their responsibility for an efficient conduct of the proceedings has been

underlined.


16 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. AVTAR SINGH, LAW OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (8th

ed., Eastern Book Company

2007).

2. BERNSTEIN, BERNSTEIN‟S HANDBOOK OF ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PRACTICE (4th

ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2003).

3. G.K.KWATRA, ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION LAW OF INDIA (7th

ed., Universal Law

publishing 2010).

4. O.P.MALHOTRA, LAW AND PRACTICE OF ARBITRATION (2nd

ed., Lexis Nexis 2006).

5. REDFERN AND HUNTER, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION (4th

ed., Oxford University Press2004).

6. RUSSELL, RUSSELL ON ARBITRATION (22nd

ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2003).

References:

1. Law Commission of India, 176th Report on Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment)

Bill, 2001 at p 68.

2. Gary .G. Weight, cost of arbitration as caregully as the cost of a trial. Potland business

Journal

3. Momota Oinam, Angshuman Kaushik, Development and Practice of Arbitration in India

–Has it Evolved as an Effective Legal Institution (Mar. 3rd

, 2013)

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22693/No_103_Sarma_India_Arbitration_India_509.pdf

Documents

Cost of Arbitration: Indian Law & English Law