In a compelling discussion on arbitration practices, Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court illuminated the reasons courts tend to extend arbitration deadlines instead of replacing arbitrators. Speaking at the India ADR Week 2026, organized by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Justice Dangre explained the pragmatic approach courts often adopt under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The event was attended by legal professionals and featured a fireside chat with Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani.
Preserving Resources in Arbitration
Justice Dangre pointed out the substantial resources invested in ongoing arbitration proceedings, emphasizing that replacing an arbitrator after several years of hearings would negate the time, money, and effort already committed. “If I turn it down today and appoint a new arbitrator, what happens to all that effort, all that resources which have gone for all these years?” she questioned. In light of these considerations, courts frequently opt for short extensions that serve the broader interests of justice.
Transitioning to Commercial Matters
During the discussion, Nankani inquired about Justice Dangre’s transition from Nagpur to Mumbai and her adaptation to handling commercial legal matters. Justice Dangre recounted that her earlier practice primarily involved civil and criminal cases for the government, with limited exposure to arbitration. However, her move to Mumbai marked a shift toward commercial matters, which she found both rewarding and intellectually stimulating.
Addressing Delays in Arbitration
The conversation also touched on India’s efforts to compete with international arbitration centers like Singapore. Justice Dangre highlighted the persistent issue of delays within the Indian arbitration system as a significant deterrent to attracting international arbitrations. “When I was given the arbitration assignment, I could see Section 11 applications pending for two years, three years,” she noted, adding that such delays undermine the system’s effectiveness.
The Role of Arbitral Institutions
Justice Dangre advocated for empowering arbitral institutions with greater authority in arbitrator appointments, suggesting that this shift could alleviate some of the systemic delays. She questioned the necessity of courts retaining control over this process, proposing that institutional autonomy could enhance efficiency. “I think that will help a lot. I mean, why should we all feel that it is only our prerogative?” she remarked.
More Read
Institutional Autonomy and Government Role
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also addressed the gathering, outlining the state’s vision for the MCIA. He stressed the importance of complete institutional autonomy for effective contract enforcement and bolstering investor confidence. “MCIA is not a government body. It does not take instructions from my government or from any private party. The arbitrators are appointed by its council, not by us,” he affirmed, underscoring that the state functions purely as a user, not a controller of the facility.
