Is Arbitration Law useful in getting speedy redressel?

As the traditional courts are burdned with so much litigation and as justice delayed is nothing but justice delayed, the alternative dispute redressel mechanism assumed great significance in the recent past. One of the alternative modes of dispute resolution is through arbitration and its governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. One must know that the dispute resolution through Arbitration is only alternative, but, not substitution. Certain powers like appointment of arbitration and passing interim orders before or during the pendency of arbitration, are conferred on Courts. The difference between the traditional dispute resolution process and the alternative dispute resolution mechanism is that the Arbitrator need not follow the Civil Procedure Code and the procedure can be agreed upon by the parties. In the absence of any agreement, the Arbitrator himself decides the procedure to be followed. But, the experience while using Arbitration Process, highlights certain issues which diserve consideration. The issues are like:

        1.  Even the application of appointment of Arbitrator is getting delayed?

        2. The parties are vehemently litigating the application seeking to refer the matter to Arbitrator also?

        3.  In most cases, when one of the party is a corporation or company, the arbitration clause appears to be onesided.

        4.  The Arbitrator must have thorough knowledge of law and it requires paying more remuneration.

         5.  The parties are not co-operating with the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator is not in a position to pass ex-parte orders in most cases.

          6.  As there is no specific procedure prescribed under the Act and as the Act stresses on principles of natural justice, the parties are delaying the Arbitration process by preferring many applications as if it is a court.

          7.  Though an application under section 34 can be preferred on certain grounds and it is not like an appeal, section 34 applications are admitted loosely.

          Thus, there are many complicated issues in Arbitration Law. In some cases, the litigants feel that the traditional courts are better than the dispute resolution through Arbitration. Again, the Arbitration process is proved to be very costly. For example, as even simple tenancy agreement too contains an Arbitration Clause, the parties to the agreement or one party to the agreement is not in a position to spend so much money and it will be convenient for the tenant always to approach Rent Control Courts and take benefit thereon.

           So, though the object is very laudable, the dispute resolution through Arbitration can be good only when:

            1.  The parties are capable of bearing the expenses incurred in the process.

            2.  When the stakes are high and when urgent and frequent orders are to be passed.

            3.  When the parties really want to resolve their disputes rather fighting formally with ulterior motive?

             Thus, the dispute resolution through Arbitration suits to some litigants and to some cases only. We may not find fault with the law and its all inevitable. And, it is also very difficult to say that the dispute resolution through Arbitration is speedy.