A dispute is normally resolved by way of litigation or through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Nowadays, arbitration which is one of the ADR mechanism, as a means of amicable and quick settlement of trade disputes is gaining increasing recognition and is practised throughout the world.

Nobody doubts the importance and sanctity of arbitration. It is claimed that arbitration is expeditious, speedy and cheap. It has many advantages over litigation in terms of cost, time and complexities. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996) has many welcome features eg, minimising the intervention of the court, giving the award a status of decree and making the award final and binding on the parties exceptin few cases.

But, in practice it is experienced that arbitration is no more speedy and far from cost effective. It is becoming the prerogative of a rich man to settle disputes through arbitration. Arbitrators demand exorbitant fees and infrastructure costs have to be borne by the disputants. There are various ways by which an intelligent lawyer can delay the arbitration proceedings. The defaulting party always insists on adjournments on the flimsy grounds, natural justice and equal opportunity to be given to both the parties.

No doubt, the settlement of disputes by the court is very expensive and a time consuming process. There are many formalities and technicalities in the institution and conduct of the suits and appeals. There are appeals against appeals besides stays, writs and revisions. The long pendency of court proceedings is proverbial, and as the saying goes the fruits of a suit instituted by a person, may be available to his grand or great grandson.

The arbitration may be faster in comparisonto courts, but it can hardly be called `speedy'. In the old Act of 1940, the time limit of giving award was four months. However, the new Act of 1996 does not provide any time limit though the arbitrator can be removed from his office on certain grounds. Clause (a) of sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 provides that the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate if he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay. A disputant party has the right to apply to the court to decide on the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator if the controversy as mentioned above continues.

The new Act desperately need a bold amendment and a provision that the award may be made within six months from the submission of the claim by the claimant is the need of the hour. This is necessary of the hour to provide expeditious justice to the aggrieved parties. Under the new Act, a party can apply for setting aside the award of an arbitraltribunal which is three month.

The same should be reduced to 30 days and the court must give its decision within 90 days if we really want to make arbitration serve its purpose. Of course, in exceptional cases discretionary power should be given to the courts to extend the above time limit. If the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of time, it may accept a delayed application. The problem of docket explosion of pending cases in courts cannot be solved unless the mechanism of ADR is implemented in its true sense.

There was a move to amend the code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 whereby civil court have to refer a case for arbitration, conciliation or mediation before commencing a trial. The same is pending since long. The time has come to pass this bill and lighten the litigation horse, so that it can walk in its normal speed, if not "run".

The last but not the least, the lawyers and retired judges have to change theirattitudes. While acting a s a counsel in an arbitration proceeding, a lawyer should approach with an open mind to resolve the dispute in most amicable manner and in the shortest possible time. The Indian mentality is that we must win the case. We have to shift our focus on getting the justice and disputes settled rather than winning a case.

The retired Judges who act as arbitrators, should also not become too much obsessed with legalities and technicalities. Arbitration is a settlement and must be perceived differently than litigation. Therefore, utmost care should be taken in selecting proper arbitrators and in case lawyers are allowed to represent the parties, no undue adjournment should be allowed and the hearing should be conducted on day to day basis and the award must follow immediately after the hearing is complete. The technicalities which retard the administration of fair and speedy justice should be assiduously avoided.

The arbitrators who fail to act within a reasonable time and without unduedelay need to be removed and proper code of ethics should be evolved for arbitration on the lines of practices recommended by the international arbitral organisations like, the International Bar Association, the Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association, the American Arbitration Association, etc.

So, to answer the million dollar question "Can arbitration provide speedy justice" one need not look far. It is our age old tradition to settle the disputes through mediation. Should we not adopt our ancient wisdom to our advantage. The country of Kautilya and Mahatma Gandhi can definitely take a lead in giving the commercial world a new direction to the ADR method of solving disputes.