Back
Says Section 29A Has Completely Failed on Arbitral Delays
, a doyen of the Gujarat tax bar and a board member of the Arbitration Centre (GHAC), has delivered a candid assessment of the state of arbitration in India, declaring that has “completely failed” to curb delays. In an exclusive interview during the bustling GHAC Arbitration Week at GIFT City, Gandhinagar, Soparkar dissected the persistent bottlenecks plaguing domestic arbitration—from ad hoc inertia to clogged —and outlined a path forward for in Gujarat.
The Failure of Section 29A
Soparkar did not mince words when addressing the statutory timeline introduced by . “Section 29A, in my view, has completely failed,” he stated. The provision mandates that must render within 12 months, extendable by six months with party consent, and thereafter only by court order. Yet, Soparkar observed, arbitrators and parties routinely circumvent the deadline by seeking mechanical extensions from . “ granting extensions under Section 29A have failed to scrutinise why extensions are needed for a third, fifth, or tenth time,” he said.
The problem, Soparkar explained, lies in the culture of permissiveness that pervades . “Because arbitration is a more informal setup than a court, things are taken for granted, are allowed as a matter of course and matters get dragged out without rhyme or reason.” He argued that unless arbitrators “put their foot down and stop delaying tactics,” will remain aspirational. “Requiring an executing court by statute to dispose of within 3, 6, or 9 months will not make it happen if it is practically impossible,” he added, pointing to the judiciary’s own track record with time-bound directives.
: A Long Road Ahead
While GHAC, closely tied to the , aims to promote , Soparkar acknowledged that awareness remains low. “The concept that the whole work of arbitration can be undertaken by an independent, neutral body is, frankly, not known to the business world beyond a point,” he said. Most domestic parties still default to , where each side appoints an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators choose a third.
To shift this paradigm, Soparkar emphasised the need for top-class facilities, arbitrators, and infrastructure. “Once things start moving in that direction, I am sure people will start shifting from to .” He described GHAC’s current association with the High Court as a “marriage of convenience” to build initial credibility. “Over a period of time, as more credibility gets attached to this institution, it may also like to be regarded as independent of the High Court. Not because it wouldn't like to be associated with it, but because we do not want this to be viewed merely as an extension of the High Court.”
Judicial Pendency: The Bottleneck at
Soparkar identified the district judiciary as the primary choke point. “The real problem is at the level,” he said, referring to applications to . “Unfortunately, district judges today are so overworked that even though they want to prioritise matters, in reality, they are unable to spare much time.” The competing demands of criminal and commercial work leave arbitration matters languishing.
By contrast, the has managed appeals efficiently under Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal. “All matters are taken up and disposed of, whether admitted or dismissed, at the initial stage itself. No matter is admitted and put into cold storage to be retrieved years later,” Soparkar noted. He recommended that district judges dedicate one or two days exclusively to arbitration matters to clear the backlog.
Enforcement of : A Chronic Weakness
Even when survive challenge, enforcement remains a hurdle. “An executing court moves only as fast as it normally would and executing courts face a huge backlog,” Soparkar observed. He suggested that parties should consider initiating proceedings immediately after an award to protect assets. “If such coercive action is taken, things might improve; otherwise, this laxity will continue due to the lack of judicial resources at the district court level.”
The Role of Senior Lawyers and Arbitrators
Soparkar placed the onus for procedural discipline squarely on arbitrators rather than counsel. “Senior advocates and advocates ultimately act on the instructions and desires of the client. If delays are being caused by a litigant, counsel will not refuse to appear simply because the client is trying to delay.” Arbitrators, he said, must be willing to enforce strict timetables, even if it means being unpopular. “The and do not apply, so arbitration proceedings do not need to adopt court-like procedures. Yet, these practices continue because arbitrators do not want to appear strict and risk discouraging advocates from appearing before them.”
To expand the arbitrator pool and reduce , Soparkar advocated for including practicing lawyers—not just retired judges—on panels. “In the , over the past year, we have started enrolling a large number of lawyers and arbitrations are being assigned to them. If there are only 10 or 15 judges in reckoning, will naturally arise. But if you have 50 people in the pool, conflicts disappear.”
Tax Disputes and
On the question of whether tax disputes can be arbitrated, Soparkar was unequivocal: “I don't believe so. No government would like to hand over its including the interpretation of taxing statutes to an arbitrator.” in M&A transactions, however, pose less of a problem. “Arbitrators are not required to interpret tax law; they only need to determine the loss or tax liability suffered by a party based on final assessment or appellate orders.”
He also lamented the government’s reported decision to exclude arbitration clauses from commercial construction contracts. “The government is one of the largest litigants in commercial disputes. Unless that policy is reversed, that sector will remain excluded.”
Conclusion
Soparkar’s wide-ranging critique underscores the systemic challenges facing arbitration in India: that lack enforcement, a judiciary too overburdened to prioritise arbitration matters, and a culture of leniency that rewards delay. His prescription is clear—, disciplined arbitrators, dedicated judicial resources, and an expanded arbitrator pool. “Everyone should appreciate the efforts being made to promote arbitration in the State of Gujarat,” he said. “I hope things turn out well and, hopefully, we can meet after 5 years to see how much progress has been made.”
For the legal community, the message is sobering: legislative fixes alone will not cure arbitration’s ills. Only a concerted shift in mindset—from arbitrators, courts, and parties alike—can transform India into a true arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
