IAMC Women Arbitration Final Assessment

Section A – Objective Type Questions

(15 Questions × 1 mark = 15 marks)
Choose the most appropriate answer from the given options.
1. Which of the following most accurately reflects the principle of party autonomy in arbitration?

2. An arbitration agreement must meet which of the following legal tests to be enforceable in India?

3. In what circumstance can a party not challenge the appointment of an arbitrator for lack of independence?

4. Which of the following best demonstrates procedural fairness in arbitration?

5. An arbitration agreement embedded in a broader contract survives:

6. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, failure to act without undue delay by an arbitrator may result in:

7. The standard of proof applied by arbitrators when evaluating evidence is typically:

8. Which of the following illustrates a non-waivable ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34?

9. A conflict between the arbitrator’s disclosure obligations and the confidentiality of prior arbitrations should be resolved by:

10. In arbitral proceedings, a party’s refusal to participate after due notice:

11. The failure to provide a reasoned arbitral award may render it:

12. Arbitration institutions often require diverse tribunals. This push for diversity is primarily based on:

13. Which of the following emerging trends challenges the traditional confidentiality of arbitration?

14. Which factor most critically affects an arbitrator’s ability to maintain impartiality?

15. Which legal principle limits the court’s intervention during arbitral proceedings?

Section B – Short Analytical Questions
(3 Questions × 5 marks = 15 marks)
Answer the following in 150–200 words each.
1. Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines an arbitration agreement. Critically examine the judicial interpretation of a 'valid arbitration agreement' with reference to recent Indian case law.

2. Under Section 12(1) and the Fifth Schedule, arbitrators are required to disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts. Analyze the scope and limits of these disclosure obligations in light of recent institutional practices and the 2019 amendments.

Section 29A of the Act prescribes time limits for arbitral awards. Evaluate whether these time-bound mandates truly promote efficiency, or whether they compromise procedural justice in complex disputes. Support your answer with examples and legal reasoning.

Section C – Long Situational Questions
(2 Questions × 10 marks = 20 marks)
Answer both questions in approximately 400–500 words each.
1. Challenging an Award under Section 34 – Case Analysis
Radhika Enterprises entered into a contract with Zenith Infra Pvt. Ltd. for the construction of a commercial complex. The arbitration clause provided for a sole arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties. The arbitral proceedings concluded with an award in favor of Zenith Infra. Radhika Enterprises later learned that the sole arbitrator had failed to disclose his professional association with Zenith's legal counsel. Radhika now seeks to challenge the award under Section 34(2).
Critically analyze whether Radhika Enterprises has valid grounds to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Discuss the interplay between the arbitrator’s disclosure obligations (under Section 12), the grounds for setting aside the award, and the evolving Indian jurisprudence on “bias” and “public policy.”

2. Procedural Fairness, Evidence, and Arbitrator’s Role – Statutory Evaluation
In a domestic commercial arbitration between Shreya Designs and Urban Fabrics Ltd., the arbitrator proceeded to close the evidence stage without allowing the respondent to cross-examine a key witness due to repeated adjournments. The arbitrator then relied heavily on that witness’s affidavit to render the final award. The respondent challenges the award on the ground of procedural unfairness.
Evaluate whether the arbitrator’s conduct in this scenario violates Section 18 (equal treatment of parties) and Section 24 (hearings and written proceedings) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. How do these provisions reconcile with the principle of party autonomy and efficiency under Section 19? Should Indian tribunals have more discretion to discipline non-compliant parties, or is procedural fairness at risk?