top of page
Question Bank
Question
What are the essential conditions a court must examine under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, before staying a legal proceeding in favor of arbitration?
Solution
Before a court can grant a stay of legal proceedings under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act, 1961, it must be fully satisfied that several mandatory conditions are met. The key conditions include, firstly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement to which the New York Convention applies. Secondly, the legal proceedings must have been commenced by a party to that agreement concerning a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration. Thirdly, the application for a stay must be made before the applicant files their written statement or takes any other step in the proceedings. Crucially, the court must be convinced that the alleged agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Unlike a prima facie view, the court is required to make a final determination on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement based on the entire material presented by the parties.
Question
Explain what constitutes an "agreement in writing" as per Article II of the New York Convention, which is scheduled to the Foreign Awards Act, 1961.
Solution
According to Article II of the New York Convention, an "agreement in writing" is defined inclusively. It includes an arbitral clause contained within a main contract or a separate arbitration agreement, provided it is signed by the parties. Importantly, the definition also extends to an agreement formed through an exchange of letters or telegrams. This means that a formal, single-document contract is not always necessary; a valid arbitration agreement can be spelt out from correspondence between the parties, provided the exchange clearly demonstrates a meeting of mind or consensus ad idem between them to submit their disputes to arbitration.
Question
In the context of finalizing contract terms, what is the legal distinction between negotiating the terms of a future contract and entering into a binding contract itself?
Solution
There is a fundamental legal distinction between finalizing the terms for a future contract and actually forming the contract. When parties negotiate and agree on the general conditions that will govern a potential future purchase order, they are merely setting the stage for a contract. This preliminary agreement on terms is a prelude to a contract and does not, by itself, create any binding obligations to buy or sell. A concluded contract or a binding contract only comes into existence when a specific offer (like a bid) is met with a clear acceptance (like a purchase order). Until that point, agreeing on the terms and conditions is not equivalent to entering into the contract itself, and crucial elements like an arbitration clause contained in those general conditions do not become operative.
Question
What is the legal character of a "Letter of Intent," and can it typically be enforced as a final and binding contract?
Solution
The legal character of a Letter of Intent (LOI) is generally that of a preliminary document expressing a party's intention to enter into a contract in the future. Ordinarily, an LOI is not intended to bind either party to a final contract and merely indicates a party's intention to place an order. It is not, by itself, a purchase order. However, the true nature of an LOI depends on its specific wording. If the language used in the LOI clearly demonstrates a final acceptance of an offer and an intention to create immediate legal relations, it may be construed as a concluded contract. The courts will examine the terms of the LOI to determine if it merely facilitates future negotiations or if it finalizes the bargain between the parties.
Question
In arbitration law, does a party's initial acquiescence or agreement to appoint an arbitrator prevent them from later challenging the very existence of the arbitration agreement?
Solution
No, initial acquiescence or even an agreement to appoint an arbitrator does not prevent a party from subsequently challenging the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The power to conclusively decide whether a valid arbitration agreement exists rests solely with the court, not the arbitrators. This is a fundamental issue that goes to the very jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The principle is that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction. Therefore, a party is not estopped from filing an application before a court to have the arbitration agreement declared null and void, even if they had previously participated in the initial steps of the arbitral process. The right to have the court decide this foundational issue is a core statutory remedy.
bottom of page