LAW RELATING TO ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION 9TH EDITION This best-selling book incorporates the latest Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including all amendments made by the Amendment Acts of 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2006.

1. ARBITRATION STEP BY STEP

2. INTRODUCTION
In current arbitration law, the notion of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (German for "competence-competence") is widely accepted. This
doctrine establishes the arbitral tribunal's competence to determine whether it can consider a case on its own jurisdiction without
the intervention of courts.
In other words, the Arbitral Tribunal has the 'competence' to judge its own 'competence.' The rationale is to ensure quick
resolution of disputes because the theory permits the arbitral tribunal to resolve jurisdictional issues at the outset.

3. INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

4. LAW OF PARTNERSHIP
Several international LAW OF PARTNERSHIP have acknowledged and adopted this principle. In Article 23(1) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules, 2013, the UNCITRAL Model Law endorses this notion. "The arbitral tribunal should have the power to judge on its own
jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement," the article declares
emphatically. Many other arbitral institutions have chosen the same approach as well. The UNCITRAL Model Law is used by the
majority of these institutions.
In addition, the Singapore International ARBITRATION STEP BY STEP Centre (SIAC) Rules include the Kompetenz-Kompetenz premise.
Article 28.2 of the Model Law proposes the same wordings as Article 23.1 of the Model Law. In the case of Malini Ventura v. Knight
Capital Pvt Ltd &Ors, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed the importance of theKompetenz-Kompetenz concept in 2015. In this case,
the court considered whether it is for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the existence of an arbitration agreement is in issue, and
found that it is. This case highlighted the Singapore courts' adherence to the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, which states that the
tribunal has first say on problems pertaining to its jurisdiction.

5. ARBITRATION

6. LAW OF CONTRACT LATEST EDITION
The Swiss Chambers Arbitration Institution (SCAI) has likewise adopted the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle in Article 21.1 of the
Swiss Rules of International Arbitration. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court recently confirmed an arbitral judgement based on the
widely recognised principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in international arbitration in a decision published on November 2, 2020.
The Supreme Court further reminded the arbitral panel that contesting the validity or existence of an arbitration agreement does not
prevent the arbitral tribunal from proceeding with the arbitration and issuing a judgement. Rather, the principle of Kompetenz-
Kompetenz empowers the arbitral panel to make a judgement on their own jurisdiction before a state court has ruled on the issue.
In addition to these Rules, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and the London Court of International Arbitration
(LCIA) have accepted the principle in their respective rules under Articles 19.1 and 23.1.

7. Alternative Dispute Resolution

8. INDIA'S STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
This idea is codified in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Indian law. The arbitral tribunal is permitted to rule on its own
jurisdiction, according to this clause. A change was made to the 1996 Act in 2015. As a result of this Amendment, Section 16's perspectives were
effectively enlarged. Section 16 now covers issues such as limitation, agreement, and satisfaction. As a result, if a party chooses to contest the
arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction,
Section 16 sets a deadline for a party to the arbitration proceedings to file a plea before the panel claiming that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Section
16(2) specifies that such a plea may not be raised after the statement of defence has been filed. When an issue considered to be beyond the
tribunal's area of jurisdiction is raised during the proceedings, a plea stating that the tribunal has exceeded its authority must be raised as quickly as
possible. In Olympus, the Supreme Court defined the situation.
The usage of the terms "as soon as" and "no later than" in the clause show that such a plea must be taken without excessive delay, according to
Superstructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan. The tribunal, on the other hand, has the authority to accept a plea as described above if it believes
the reason for the delay in filing a plea is legitimate.

9. JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE IN
INDIA

10. ARBITRATION STEP BY STEP
Many times, Section 16 has been read in conjunction with Section 11 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of arbitrators.
In the case of SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering in 2005, Section 16 was combined with Section 11 for the first time. In this
instance, the Supreme Court effectively undercut the Kompetenz-Kompetenz theory.
"Where jurisdictional problems are resolved under Section 11 before a reference is made, Section 16 cannot be construed to
authorise the arbitral tribunal to disregard the decision delivered by the judicial authority or the Chief Justice before the reference
was made," the Court said. This decision drew a lot of criticism because it weakened the power of the arbitral tribunal mentioned.

11. Law ARBITRATION