Stepping in as an Arbitration Consultant

The rules themselves are helpful, but they nosedive to make any innovative change, which was needed to catch eyeballs and break the justified stereotype of a tardy arbitration process in India. One new instrument that could have been used is a facility for Third Party Funding. Despite being unflatteringly dubbed as Gambler’s Nirvana due to its “heads-I-win-tails-I-do-not-lose” frame, the role of TPF in international Arbitration Consultant gaining traction. The MIAC could do wonders for its reputation if it pulled up its sleeves and drafted provisions for the similar. Now, TPF is neither specifically known nor prohibited in India. But the prohibition against lawyers charging contingency fees and India’s tryst with public policy can indicate that it might not have encouraged it at least in litigation. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that the same yardstick would be applied to commercial arbitrations. This is especially considering how so many issues relating to rights in rem that were non-arbitral in the past have been brought under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Moreover, with new strides being taken in arbitration in India and in TPF necessities about the world, one miracles if a carve out might have been made for arbitration as has been done in popular arbitration centers.

International Arbitration Consultant as a whole has become an expensive affair. The Queen Mary Arbitration Survey has noted how “cost is seen as arbitration’s nastiest story. The problem is mainly acute in India owing to how arbitration is mostly the first step to litigation. That is where TPF steps in, aiding a public policy objective of redressed of grievance and allowing the pursuit of measures allowed under law without being crippled financially.