Some arbitration rules provide for “internal” challenges. The ICSID Arbitration Rules are the most comprehensive regime for challenging arbitral awards through an internal review procedure. In the event of a request for annulment of the arbitral award, an ad hoc tripartite committee will be set up by ICSID to rule on the request. If the arbitral award is set aside in whole or in part, either party may request that the dispute be submitted to a new court which reviews the dispute and then gives a new (and final) arbitral award. In this scenario, the arbitral tribunal may divert the arbitration in order to rule on the question of jurisdiction arising from the challenge to the arbitration agreement. The result of branching is an under-attribution that produces, among other things, definitive effects. This article deals with: (i) the requirements relating to the validity of the arbitration agreement; (ii) emphasis on whether branching can be a source of effectiveness when the validity of the arbitration clause is challenged; and (iii) the final effects of partial arbitration, if any, in the event of ramification. On the face of the case, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a case of first instance concerning the existence of the arbitration agreement. The application for a stay of proceedings was therefore rejected and the question of jurisdiction was left to the Tribunal. This sentence clearly shows the value of the presumption of validity of an arbitration clause.
It should not be considered a universal magic pill. Nevertheless, it helps to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties and improves the stability and consistency of dispute settlement. If the validity of the arbitration clause is contested, an objection shall be raised against the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Such objection may serve or jeopardize arbitration. In any event, a well-founded lack of jurisdiction is a reason to challenge the arbitral award. Indeed, a valid arbitration action is a prerequisite for the establishment of an enforceable arbitration agreement. If there is no valid arbitration agreement, there can be no valid arbitration. Therefore, there can be no valid arbitral award. The Amending Act clarifies that an arbitral award is not set aside by the Tribunal solely on the basis of misasurance of the law or a reassessment of the evidence.1 A court will not verify the merits of the dispute when deciding whether the award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.2 that the arbitral award may be set aside if the tribunal finds that it is vitiated by the patent law state which appears before the arbitral award in the event of domestic arbitration.
For the ICA, headquartered in India, the “illegality of the patent” has been admitted outside the scope of the arbitration action3. The applicant would have received a guarantee (the “guarantee”) for the loan of a third party. . . .