Anirban Chanda (‘16 JGLS) and Anujay Shrivastava (‘15 JGLS) co-authored an article which has been published as a chapter in an edited book by Prof. (Dr.) R. Venkata Rao titled “Global Thoughts and Opinions on the International Law and International Relations” [ISBN No. 978-81-941524-8-4]. Chapter 9 is titled “Arbitrability of Fraud in India and The United Kingdom: A Judicial “Magnum Opus””.
This chapter intends to critically analyse the existing legal positions on “arbitrability of fraud” and how it evolved over time in both the countries. In India, we have discerned the jurisprudential evolution both under the Arbitration Act 1940 and the present 1996 Act regime (including amendments). Similarly, Anirban and Anujay have analysed transition of this law in UK tracing back to the earliest decisions by House of Lords in Russel (1880) to the recent decisions like Celtic Bioenergy (2017). Additionally, while making a comparative study, this chapter proceeds to make an empirical analysis of the Indian Apex Court decisions, including how Indian jurisprudence has travelled to different jurisdictions.
Finally, Anirban and Anujay state that Ayyasamy (2016) decision is both conducive to a pro-arbitration regime and equally sensitive to the potential dangers of arbitrating serious matters of fraud and criminal misdoings.
Additionally, on the IndiaCorpLaw Blog run by Prof. (Dr.) Umakanth Varottil, Anirban and Anujay had earlier co-authored a post on “Arbitrability of Fraud in India: The Rashid Raza test for Complex Fraud” (December 2019). In this post, Anirban and Anujay trace the existing jurisprudence on “arbitrability of fraud” in India up to the latest Three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar (2019). Anirban and Anujay evaluate the two-step conjunctive test provided by Hon’ble Justice Mr. R.F. Nariman for determining “complex fraud”. Moving on, we discuss whether there is a need for legislative clarity on “arbitrability” of subject-matters and conclude by proposing an idea to elevate India-seated arbitral tribunals to the same standards as courts of law. The link to the post is here: https://indiacorplaw.in/2019/12/arbitrability-fraud-india-rashid-raza-test-complex-fraud.html
Anujay and Anubhav Khamroi (15’ JGLS) have also co-authored another chapter in the edited book by Professor (Dr.) R. Venkata Rao.
Chapter 22 (co-authored by Anubhav and Anujay) is titled: “Scouring The Haziness In The Jurisprudence Of Contractual Time-Limitation Clauses In International Commercial Arbitration: Better Three Hours Too Soon Than A Minute Too Late”. Both the chapters were selected from amongst 1400 entries in the 1st Justice Dipak Misra National Call for Chapters 2019.
This chapter intends to explore the scope and working of “contractual time-limitation” clauses used in arbitration agreements. The Chapter discusses: the operation of contractual time-bar clauses, comparison between working of such clauses vs. statutory law of limitations, judicial opinions on the subject across the globe, standards of contractual interpretation and scope of judicial intervention against the enforcement of such clauses.
Anubhav and Anujay discuss the contractual time-bar clauses used in the Moot problem for Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2017 and Prof. Gary Born’s book. Anubhav’s experience at the Vis Vienna 2017 moot came in handy and was like an event horizon that started our journey to explore this singularity. Anubhav’ team representing JGLS was the Grand Runners-up for the World Rounds of the Vis Vienna Moot 2017, which remains the biggest achievement of the MCS till date.
JGU alumnus, namely, Prof. Kush Makkar, presently a practicing Solicitor at UK and Mr. Amartya Ashish Sharan, LL.M. Candidate at New York University helped Anubhav and Anujay with their valuable inputs in an earlier version of this chapter.