Skip to main content

Information Technology Act & Laws on Arbitration

With the rise of e-contracts and smart contracts in commercial transactions globally, it becomes important to analyze developments in ADR such as blockchain arbitration. The concept of blockchain arbitration is very recent and it seeks to use the advantages of the technology in dispute resolution. However, one important facet of understanding the feasibility of using blockchain technology in arbitrations in India is understanding whether awards rendered through such a process can be enforceable in the first place. While the 2015 Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act introduced some changes to bring the Act on par with contemporary technology, there is still a lack of clarity in determining whether the peculiar form of blockchain arbitration can be facilitated through the Indian Act.
Validity of the Arbitration Agreement in Domestic Awards 
One problem identified with the enforceability of blockchain 
arbitration awards is the lack of enforceability of the agreement itself under the New York Convention which requires such agreements to be in writing or through the exchange of telegrams/telefaxes. Similarly, Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Award also requires that a valid arbitration agreement should be in “writing”. However, unlike Article II of the New York Convention, Section 7 further clarifies that an agreement would be considered as having been in writing if it has been communicated through “electronic means”. The allowance for “electronic means” was introduced through Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. Electronic means have not been defined under the Act or the Amendment Act despite the recommendation of the 246th Law Commission Report.
   However, Section 10A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives validity to contracts that are formed through electronic means. Electronic means is defined in the section as means used for creation of an “electronic record”. Electronic Record is further defined under Section 2(1)(t) of the Act as “data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche”. Smart contracts are made up of a series of electronic records which are transmitted and stored by the parties, thereby covering the same within the definition of an “electronic means”. Therefore it can be concluded that blockchain arbitration agreements would be valid under the amended Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The question of whether the Amendment Act would apply or not to particular proceedings would depend on the date of the commencement of such proceedings.
Difficulty in Determining Territory of the Awarding Country 
India has made the reciprocity reservation under Article I of the New York Convention which means that foreign awards made in only certain Contracting States of the Convention (gazetted by the Central Government) can be enforced in India. As of now, India has gazetted less than 1/3rd of all of the Contracting States to the Convention.
An exception was carved out in the case of Transocean Shipping Agency v. Black Sea Shipping[1], where an award of Ukraine was enforced in India despite “Ukraine” not being gazetted officially by the Central Government. However, the reason for the same was that the USSR (which Ukraine was a part of originally) was gazetted by India.
In blockchain arbitration, arbitrators are selected by the dispute resolution service provider once a request for arbitration is made from a smart contract. These arbitrators are usually individuals who have applied to the service providers with their expertise. The arbitral award is then given on the blockchain ledger with the copies of such a decision being made available to the parties on their respective computers (in different countries). The arbitral award in itself, however, cannot be said to have been given in any one country. This then results in the question of whether such an award can be enforced in India in light of the reciprocity clause. A strict interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would mean that such an award cannot be enforced in India since the physical space of the internet has not been gazetted by the Central Government. Such an interpretation would, however, be antithetical to the arbitration-friendly approach being increasingly adopted by India. Conversely, allowing all awards given through blockchain arbitration could result in the intentional misuse of such proceedings to prevent the application of the reciprocity reservation of India.
This question is better answered in cases where the service provider approaches an established arbitral institution to render an award. In such a case, the country, where the arbitral institution is established in, can be considered to decide whether the same would pass the test of reciprocity and enforceability in India.
Evidence of Arbitral Award
The provisions for enforceability of a domestic and a foreign arbitral award have been laid down under Sections 36 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act respectively. An application made for enforceability of either of such awards should include an “original copy” of the award. This becomes difficult in blockchain arbitration since there is no one “original copy” of the award in these arbitrations and the award is put on the network accessible to everyone. It can, however, be argued that the Act also allows for “duly certified” copies of the original award to be presented to the Court. The mechanism of blockchain theoretically makes it impossible for anyone to merely alter their copy of the arbitration award, which means that a copy of the award taken from the blockchain would be duly certified in itself. To make it more secure, Courts can be allowed access to the blockchain to procure a direct copy of the award.
However, unlike a foreign award in EPC Limited v. Rioglass Solar SA[2], a domestic award is further required to be stamped in order to be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Section 3 of the Stamp Act read with Schedule I, Article 12 of the Act suggests an arbitral award made in “writing” should be stamped. The question of a “written” arbitral award is similar to the question of a written arbitration agreement discussed above. The Stamp Act currently does not include “electronic means” in the definition of a written arbitral award. Pending a legislative amendment to this effect, the Stamp Act could be read to allow for “electronic” arbitral awards in keeping with the trend demonstrated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Information Technology Act towards facilitating technological advancements in commercial transactions.
Further, section 17 of the Registration Act requires domestic awards to be registered when it affects rights related to an immovable property. Only such an award which is then duly stamped and/or registered can be presented to the Court for enforcement[3]. This means that giving direct access of the blockchain to the enforcing Court would not be sufficient since such an award also needs to be duly stamped and/or registered first. Direct access, in domestic awards, can be given for the purposes of proving the original award while stamping and registering the document. 

The copy of the award which is then duly stamped and/or registered can be considered as “original” for the purpose of making an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. For foreign awards, direct access can simply be given to the Court in which an application for enforcement of the foreign award is made.

[1] (1998) 2 SCC 281
[2] (2018) SCC Online 1471
[3] M. Anasuya Devi v. M. Manik Reddy, (2003) 8 SCC 565

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.


Subscribe our web Equa.Law and get latest update of Mediation.

Popular Posts

‘Negotiation’ vs ‘Mediation’ vs ‘Arbitration’

An alternate dispute resolution (ADR) is a method used to resolve issues without resorting to a court case. The different methods of doing so under the ADR umbrella include negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This article explores the different methods and tries to explain to the readers the pros and cons of the same.  Starting with Mediation, the term "mediation" refers to the procedure wherein parties to a dispute are helped to resolve their differences by a neutral third party that does not favour one side).  The neutral third person is known as the 'mediator', and the mediator helps the parties communicate by acting as the communicator between the two parties. The mediator controls the flow of information between the parties in a reasonable, transparent, and unbiased manner.  The mediators don't take sides, offer counsel, or offer legal advice to any parties. They do not serve in either of these capacities. They help by outlining the points of contention

Scope & Importance of ADR

The mechanism of ADR System and its techniques are an extra-judicial remedy to resolve disputes outside the legal fora. These techniques can be used in all those cases, which are capable of being resolved, under law, by mutual agreement between the parties. The scope of ADR is wider and can cover cases of civil nature, commercial, industrial and family disputes or any other cases of urgent nature. The ADR works across the full range of business disputes: banking; contract performance and interpretations, construction contracts, intellectual property rights, insurance coverage, conflicts in joint ventures, partnership differences, personal injury; product liability; professional liability, real estate, and securities. The mechanism of the ADR system may offer the best solution in commercial disputes of an international character. The scope of an ADR System is not intended to supplant existing means of dispute resolution. It offers only alternative options to litigation. There is a large

ADR: The legal necessity for Post Covid India

Name – Garvit Bhardwaj College - Faculty of Law, University of Delhi "Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point Out to them how the normal winner is often a loser in fees, expenses, cost and time"- These words of Abraham Lincon have passed the test of time as to how reduced litigation can be beneficial for society. But a highly commercialized and developing society like ours is bound to face disputes which shift the emphasis from avoiding litigation to providing faster means to resolve unavoidable conflicts. The unprecedented COVID-19 crisis is likely to lead to an upsurge in the number of cases before the judiciary. For instance, consumer, tenancy, and labor disputes are likely to see a rise soon and our judicial system stands incapable of handling them effectively. The Indian Judicial system, even after 75 years of independence, is still facing crippling backlogs and delays. Approximately 73,000 cases are pending before the Supreme