In a clear call to streamline the arbitration process, the Supreme Court expressed its frustration with the increasing trend of overly bulky pleadings and lengthy submissions. On Monday, July 8, the bench, featuring Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, urged the legal community to focus solely on legally permissible grounds when filing arbitration petitions under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“When the bar raises numerous grounds in petitions under Section 34 that fall outside its scope, they waste precious court time,” the bench remarked. “Given our substantial caseload, this inefficiency is unacceptable. We must prioritize brevity and legal relevance to ensure fair and effective arbitration proceedings.”
Highlighting the detrimental impact of excessive reliance on precedents—often irrelevant—the Court pointed out how this practice results in unnecessarily prolonged hearings. “Arbitration cases have become synonymous with voluminous pleadings and extensive evidence, leading to drawn-out awards,” they noted.
In a striking example, the Court observed a petition under Section 34 containing 151 grounds and an appeal under Section 37 with 164 grounds. “This overwhelming number of challenges, many of which are legally unsustainable, only complicates and extends the arbitration process,” the Court commented, adding that such practices run contrary to the intended efficiency of the UNCITRAL model.
The justices emphasized that all parties involved in arbitration must adopt a more concise approach. “Brevity will enhance the effectiveness of arbitral proceedings and appeals under Sections 34 and 37. It’s essential that stakeholders reconsider their approach to avoid frustrating the very purpose of arbitration,” they concluded.
“Arbitration should serve as a swift, effective, and cost-efficient method for resolving disputes,” the Court asserted, reminding advocates to streamline their submissions and focus on what truly matters.
