Transcription
I need Take a picture. [Music] Amen. Keep going. Everybody will Namaskar. A very good evening to all of you. We'll be starting the function in a very short while. I request everyone to be kindly seated. Please put your phones on silent mode or aeroplane mode. I request all of them to take their seats as the deities are about to come. I request everyone to be kindly seated. We'll be starting with the program in a very short while. The honorable chief guest and other dignitaries are here with us. Kindly rise. May we have the National Anthem, please. [Music] Fore! [Music] Foreign! Foreign! [Music] Fore! [Music] Foreign! Foreign! [Music]
Namaskar. Good evening to all of you. On behalf of the honorable Supreme Court of India, Honorable High Court of Delhi and the Delhi International Arbitration Center, I extend a warm welcome to all the distinguished invitees to this inaugural function of the third edition of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025. Your gracious presence here adds immense value to this hallowed occasion.
On this occasion, we are deeply honored by the august presence of honorable Mr. Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavay, the Chief Justice of India. I extend a special welcome to the honorable chief justice Mr. Stephen Giggler AC High Court of Australia who a globally acclaimed expert on international arbitration. I also extend a warm welcome to honorable Mr. Justice DK Oopai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi.
At this juncture, I would like to inform this August gathering that very recently we lost Mr. Yashad Samant, a key member of the working committee for organizing the last two editions of the Delhi arbitration weekend. In his honor and to acknowledge his significant contributions, we ask the dignitaries both on and off the dis to kindly rise and observe a minute silence. Thank you for your respect and observance.
I would now like to request honorable Mr. Justice Dopadhya, Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to present a shawl and a prahavali to the honorable Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavay. [Applause] [Applause]
I would now like to request honorable Mr. Justice DK Oophai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to present a shawl and a prahavli to the honorable chief justice Mr. Stefen Gagler AC High Court of Australia. Sir, we hope it serves as a reminder of your time at the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 and of the timeless elegance of Indian craftsmanship. [Applause] [Applause]
I would now like to request honorable Mr. Justice Subramanyam Prasad, Chairperson, Organizing Committee, Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 and Judge High Court of Delhi to present a shawl and a prahavali to honorable the chief justice of the high court of Delhi, Justice DK upadhai. [Applause]
This spectacular event held in this beautiful city ever since 2023 brings together esteemed practitioners, scholars and aspiring minds in the field of arbitration which is more than just an alternative dispute resolution method. It is a testament to our collective belief in swift, impartial, and expert-driven justice. It is the bridge that connects different legal traditions, transcending borders to foster a global legal community. So, as we embark on a journey of intellectual exchange, dialogue and collaboration, may I request honorable Mr. Justice DK Oadhai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to kindly deliver the welcome address.
Honorable the Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gway, Honorable the Chief Justice High Court of Australia, Justice Stephen Gaggler, Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of India, Present and Past, my colleagues from Delhi High Court, Honorable Judges of other High Courts, other dignitaries on and off the DAS, senior advocates, members of the bar, participants and all other who are in attendance today. It gives me immense pleasure to welcome you all to the third edition of Delhi Arbitration weekend. I wish you all a very good evening and namaskar.
It is a matter of great great pleasure for me to deliver this welcome address. I welcome honorable chief justice of India who has been an integral part of Delhi Arbitration weekend ever since its inception in the year 2023. He has been a guide for all of us and has always been committed to ensure that this event continues to maintain its high standards. We have certainly bothered him on multiple occasions to seek his guidance and he has very been he has been very kind to offer his time and attention to every minute detail of the conference.
Let me share some personal experience of working with honorable the chief justice of India. During my tenure as chief justice of Bombay High Court, I got multiple opportunities to accompany his lordship to various judicial events across the length and breadth of state of Maharashtra. What I found in him is that he is full of energy and he takes keen interest in resolving the administrative issues concerning the high courts. As my guardian, he has always guided me and inspired me about the energy that he possesses. Anyone can be envious of him. After completing a tour to a district court, taking stock of infrastructural facilities there, inaugurating some court building, addressing the lawyers and judicial officers at large, his lordship immediately used to return back to Delhi to attend the call of his duties and during the travel time of two hours from Bombay to Delhi, he used to read the briefs which were to be taken up in the court the next day. His charm never diminishes.
My gratitude is also due to honorable judges of the Supreme Court who have been source of guidance and inspiration and many of them have been part of earlier versions of Delhi arbitration weekend. I also welcome honorable Stephen Gaggler, Chief Justice of High Court of Australia. His presence is not only a matter of great honor for all of us but is also a testimony of the truly global character of Delhi Arbitration Weekend. Australia has evolved significantly in the field of international commercial arbitration. The Australian courts have adopted a consistent proarbitration stance in various cases concerning international arbitration and it is fully befitting that Justice Gaggler is present amongst us today to share his insights. I'm confident that his valuable experience shall add immense value to the proposed discourse in this conference. Having said that, this is Giggler. I also hope that you find time to visit around the beautiful city of Delhi and take some good memories home. We shall remain committed to ensure that you have a good time with us.
My colleagues on the bench of Delhi High Court and judges from other high courts deserve special gratitude. I also acknowledge the presence of our international delegates who have traveled from different corners of the world to be with us and granted us an opportunity to host them and benefit from their vast experience. Their participation testifies to the fact that arbitration is truly a global language of justice transcending national barriers. The distinguished speakers and delegates of DO 2025 represent the finest in the world of arbitration and their collective wisdom and knowledge will make this event an effective platform for the exchange of progressive ideas.
In 2023, we began with a vision to bring together diverse voices in arbitration. Within a short span of three years, the Delhi International Arbitration Center has established itself as one of the leading fora for scholarly dialogue and institutional collaboration in the field of arbitration. The third edition of Delhi Arbitration Weekend is not only an academic or a professional gathering but a collective reflection of India's aspirations to emerge as a global hub for international arbitration. The significance of this weekend lies in the breadth of its themes and the depth of its participation.
The Delhi arbitration weekend has been conceptualized as a platform where contemporary issues in the field of arbitration are deliberated from a global standpoint. Every jurisdiction brings a new experience to the table. The nature of subject matters, the nature of litigation, the nature of litigants, the prevalent statutory framework etc. are some of the influencing factors. Therefore, the infusion of local influence in the practice of arbitration cannot be ignored. However, we must strive for uniformity to the extent feasible by calibrating our practices from time to time. Unless we expose ourselves to better ideas and practices, we may not be able to unshackle ourselves from the local influences.
We must be mindful that every now and then the practice of arbitration finds itself in an inherent conflict with the general civil procedure of the country. Every jurisdiction finds a different solution to this persistent problem and the solutions are fine-tuned to the specific facts of the case. However, every such instance is a reminder that there is significant scope for academic engagement in the field of arbitration and I must congratulate you all for participating in this discourse. It is only through deliberation that we can find lasting ideas to such inherent conflicts. And this third edition of Delhi arbitration weekend gives us this opportunity where we can initiate a debate on all the relevant topics and concerns to situate arbitration within the broader social, economic and technological transformations. As we embark on three days of intensive deliberations, the discussions we hold here and the ideas we exchange, I'm confident this will shape the course of arbitration in India and contribute to its evolution globally.
Arbitration as we all know has become the cornerstone of modern commercial dispute resolution. In a world characterized by crossber transactions, digital transformations and geopolitical complexities, arbitration offers neutrality, efficiency and expertise, the qualities that traditional litigation has often struggled to provide in complex commercial context. Yet we must be candid in in acknowledging that the arbitral processes do not come without its shortcomings. Issues such as procedural delays, questions of independence and impartiality and forcibility of awards and the role of courts in balancing minimal interference with necessary oversight continue to occupy the center stage. With our growing inter in integration into the global economy and India's aspiration to be an international hub for international arbitration, the choices we make today will define the effectiveness of our system in the coming years.
For Delhi to be the preferred seat for a large number of arbitrations, the Delhi High Court has played a pivotal role in developing proarbitration juristprudence. Our approach has been guided by two fundamental commitments. First to uphold the ideals of party autonomy and institutional integrity and second to ensure that arbitration is not plagued by delay or inefficiency. The integration of artificial intelligence and other technological enhance other technologies enhances the efficiency of arbitration. While increasing the efficiency of the process, AI comes with its own striking challenges. While AI can enhance and support the conduct of arbitration in multiple ways, it obviously cannot completely replace human arbitrators because the human element in the resolution of disputes cannot be done away with. It is thus incumbent upon us to formulate the guidelines that will shape the future of assimilation of artificial intelligence in the functioning of arbitral tribunals preserving the efficiency while ensuring that justice delivery is not impacted by over reliance on AI. While a tribunal may take the assistance of artificial intelligence to perform non-judicial tasks that do not require application of judicial mind, the task of adjudicating a dispute cannot be delegated to artificial intelligence as the human conscience lies at the heart of delivering justice.
Another extremely important topic is India's stride towards being the seat of international commercial arbitrations. The reliability of an arbitral seat is measured not only in its legislative framework but also in infrastructural and institutional framework and judicial support that sustains it. Seat gives legitimacy to arbitration. Parties choose a particular seat of arbitration because they are assured that awards will be recognized and enforced. Indian courts and especially the Supreme Court ha has demonstrated a clear intent to expeditiously decide the challenges and enforce the awards by adhering to limited contours of interference and judicial review in order to ensure that complete justice is served. Further, it is also imperative that the enforcement of interim measures and emergency relief must be effective and certain so that the subject matter of dispute between the parties is preserved till the time the dispute is finally adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal.
The theme of investment arbitration will see a profound discourse in this edition of DO on the challenges it faces and the way forward. The legitimacy of investment arbitration lies not in its ability to protect capital alone but in harmonizing private interest with sovereign responsibilities. There are multiple global challenges that may impact investment arbitration. One such striking challenge is environmental concerns. Environmental issues have become central to investment arbitration because many disputes involve activities such as resource extraction or projects with significant ecological impacts. Tribunals in such disputes thus must balance investor rights with the state's duty to protect the environment. This requires nuanced consideration of international law, treaty obligations, and scientific evidence. These challenges persist due to inherent tension between protecting investments and ensuring environmental sustainability. Ultimately, the future of investment arbitration will depend on achieving a careful balance between economic growth and environmental protection thereby safeguarding investors right state sovereignty and global sustainability.
India's stride towards being the seat hinges heavily on another important consideration that is the conundrum between the principle of party autonomy and arbitration and the appointment of independent arbitrators. Party autonomy allows parties to structure appointments as they fit. However, the unqualified principle of party autonomy could lead to practices incompatible with the integrity of the arbitral process. Lastly, the issue of drafts drafting enforcable awards has assumed great significance lately. An arbitral tribunal may hear the finest arguments and weigh the most complex evidence, but if its award is ultimately unenforcable in practice, the process becomes futile. The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign A arbitral awards 1958 commonly known as the New York Convention has created a global framework for the enforcement of foreign awards with minimal interference. Yet the strength of this framework depends not only on the national courts but also on the manner in which arbiter tribunal draft their awards. An enforcable award must speak in a language that is clear and well reasoned.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my heartful appreciation to the organizing committee of Delhi High Court and the uh Delhi International Habitation Center who have worked tirelessly to curate this event. This commitment to excellence has ensured that this platform brings together the best of scholarship, practice and policy. As I welcome you all today, I am confident that you would thoroughly enjoy and participate in the technical sessions over the next two days and would contribute to enrich the discourse. I also hope that you would enjoy your time with us and would experience a taste of Indian hospitality rooted in Sanskrit phrase kimbukam which means the world is one family. I will recite the complete shlok where this phrase occurs. Translated into English, it denotes that for those who have a small heart, their thinking is that this is their own and that is someone else's. For those who have a big heart, the whole earth is their family. On this note, I thank you all for joining us here today and convey my best wishes to all the participants. Thank you, J.
The cornerstone of any great conference is an opening that sets the stage for deliberations and inspires the minds. Thank you, sir, for giving us that perfect opening. Arbitration as we know stands at the intersection of law, commerce and international relations. To give us a global perspective on this evolving field, we now have the pleasure of hearing from our keynote speaker, the honorable Chief Justice, Mr. Stephen Gagler, AC High Court of Australia.
The Honorable Chief Justice of India, the Honorable Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is truly an honor to be with you this evening at an extreme extremely prestigious event in a very vibrant city. I thank the organizing committee of the Delhi arbitration weekend for the invitation to speak. I thank them for their generous hospitality and I thank them for organizing what I am sure will be yet another very successful annual arbitration conference. My presentation tonight is entitled the uncertral model law, a model of dialogue between the international and the domestic.
The concept of dialogue is often discussed in constitutional scholarship. The idea is that in a constitutional democracy, the judiciary on the one hand and the legislature on the other engage in a dialogue which shapes and defines the boundaries of the law. In this presentation, I adapt the concept of dialogue to describe the relationship between the international sphere and the domestic sphere in shaping and defining the boundaries of arbitration under the uncertral model law. I propose to talk about this dialogue in four stages. The first stage concerns the creation of unsatrol that is the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the international development by Ansatrell of the model law as an extraordinarily successful example of what was termed by the great Dutch legal scholar Aaron Broch as an exercise in international legislation. The second stage concerns the domestic implementation and interpretation of the model law in its original form. The third stage concerns the international updating of the model law based in part on the experience of those domestic jurisdictions which had implemented the model law in its original form. The fourth and current stage concerns the domestic integration and reinterpretation of the updated model law having regard to its international origin and to the need to promote uniformity in its application.
Stage one, creation of the model law. The origins of the model law cannot be fully appreciated without looking at the foundations of the system that brought about its creation. In August 1941, in the midst of the most destructive war humanity had ever experienced, two world leaders sat together off the coast of New Foundland. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill then and there committed to the ideals of the world they sought to forge after the war in a declaration later dubbed the Atlantic Charter. In January 1942, 26 nations including India and Australia committed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter in a joint declaration known as the Declaration by United Nations. As the name suggests, the Declaration by United Nations was the seedling of the post-war creation of the modern United Nations. Much has been made of the commitment to peace and to the seeking of abandonment of the use of force that defined the Atlantic Charter and underlay the formation of the United Nations. The first purpose of the United Nations as set out in article 11 of the UN charter is to maintain international peace and security. However, in the Atlantic Charter, placed below the commitment to territorial integrity, but above the commitment to a world without the use of force was the commitment, and I quote, to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security. The commitment came to be reflected in the purpose set out in article 13 of the UN charter to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in article 13 of the UN charter which provides for the United Nations General Assembly to foster international cooperation in these areas.
This is not to suggest that the story of international commercial arbitration starts in the post-war period. The practice of arbitration has ancient roots including here in India. Many significant organizations that continue to shape international arbitration like the London Court of International Arbitration and the International Chamber of Commerce have their origins in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But there was something unique about the post-war period. For centuries before, the world's economic circumstances had been slanted in favor of a small group of trading enterprises in a small group of countries in Western Europe. In the post-war period, as decolonization occurred and new nations emerged, there was increased impetus for bodies concerned to facilitate international trade to be truly representative of the wider order. The establishment of the United Nations provided a forum for this wider representation. The forum quickly came to be utilized by those hoping to streamline international commercial arbitration. In 1953, the International Chamber of Commerce drafted its own wishlist International Arbitration Convention, prompting the United Nations Economic and Social Council to set up a process which led to the holding in 1958 of a conference in New York, the city that gave its name to the resultant convention being the convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Four years later in 1962, a colloquium convened in London by the International Association of Legal Science highlighted a lack of cooperation between bodies in the international arbitration field leading some present to suggest that the United Nations should take up the issue. The issue was taken up and championed in the General Assembly of the United Nations by Hungary. The outcome was the establishment of anatrol by resolution of the general assembly in 1966 with the express mandate of promoting the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade. Justice Sabowal of the Supreme Court of India highlighted the centrality of this mandate when he observed that the United Nations established answer on account of the fact that the general assembly recognized the disparities in national laws governing international trade created obstacles to the flow of trade. Untrail's fulfillment of this mandate has been facilitated by its broad ranging membership consisting of 36 states, nine African, seven Asian, five Eastern European, six Latin American and nine Western European and other states. Its practice of reaching decisions only by consensus too has reflected a commitment to being a body that has not only been representative of the diversity of the world's views but which has spoken as one with the input of perspectives from across the membership of the United Nations.
Given that it was the disparity among national laws governing international trade that had led to answer's creation, there was early consensus within it that in considering a potential model law, answer should focus on international commercial arbitration rather than arbitration more broadly. Nevertheless, it was always contemplated that any model law concerning international commercial arbitration should be flexible enough to be able to be applied equally for domestic arbitrations if a state saw fit to do so. Having produced its model rules in 1976, answer in 1979 formed a working group for the model law, initially comprising 15 member states with an additional 27 states participating as observers. After seven years of consultation and drafting and a detailed review of the draft text, Anatral adopted the model law in June 1985. In December of that same year, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed the mandate of Unsatrol to promote efficiency, consistency, and coherence in the unification and harmonization of international trade law and resolved to endorse the model law. The resolution stated the conviction of the general assembly that the establishment of a model law and arbitration that is acceptable to states with different legal, social and economic system contributes to the development of harmonious international economic relations. The resolution stated the further conviction of the general assembly that the model law together with the New York convention and the uncertral rules would contribute to the establishment of a unified legal framework for the fair and efficient settlement of disputes arising in commercial uh relations at the international level. The general assembly recommended by the same resolution that all states give due consideration to the model law in view of the desiraability of uniformity of the law of arbitral procedure and the specific needs of international commercial arbitration practice.
Stage two, domestic implementation of the model law. Having been recommended to all states by the general assembly, it then fell to each state to decide whether to implement the model law. Canada was the first adopting the model law in 1986. Australia was not far behind. Australian implementation occurred in 1989 through an amendment to the pre-existing international arbitration act to declare the model law in its totality to have the force of law in Australia subject to the parties to an international arbitration agreement being able to opt out of the model law by agreement. During the 1990s, 30 other states implemented the model law, including India in 1996. Between 2000 and 2006, another 21 states followed. Though it was one thing to have the model law widely adopted across jurisdictions, it proved quite another thing to achieve a uniform interpretation and application of the model law. A difficulty encountered in many domestic legal systems lay in the disperate interpretation of the text of the model law by domestic judges who were unfamiliar with its international context and who set about interpreting and applying it by reference to familiar but ill-fitting domestic precedents and techniques of interpretation. There were early adopters of an internationalist approach to interpretation of the model law. An influential example from my own jurisdiction was a judgment of justice who was later to become chief justice of the federal court of Australia in a case of common danti marine corporation and pan Australia shipping proprietary limited in 2006. His honor there explicitly noted the need for consistency in international commerce, had regard to the preparatory documents for the model law, referred to international literature, and analyzed and engaged with approaches to the model law revealed by decisions of courts of a number of other countries. Nevertheless, the use of an international lens to consider issues arising under the model law was during this period peacemeal at best. In a comprehensive study of the interpretation and uniformity of application of the model law published in 2016, Dean Lewis observed that the degree of adoption of an internationalist approach during this early period of the domestic implementation of the model law very much depended on which judge was hearing a case. The difficulty was not just with the courts. Practitioners would also generally fall short of providing the courts with the necessary material to properly approach the interpretation of the model law with an international lens. What was becoming apparent in the words of Chief Justice Menon of Singapore was that the model law did not exist in a vacuum. It did not interpret and apply itself. It needed to be brought to life by being interpreted and applied by judges and practitioners. and it needed to be brought to life in a way that was consistent across borders.
Stage three then updating the model law. The revisiting of the model law in the international sphere in light of the early experience of its domestic implementation occurred in the early part of this century. A working group on the model law was established by answer in 2000. After significant debate and discussion on the technical details for reform within the working group, a draft amended model law was circulated and presented to answer in July 2006. With some revision, it was adopted by Ansatrial that same month. The United Nations General Assembly then resolved to endorse the amended model law in December 2006, expressing satisfaction that it would contribute significantly to the establishment of a harmonized legal framework for a fair and efficient settlement of international commercial disputes. Ultimately, the updating process spanned seven years, almost as long as the work on the original model law itself. The principal amendments to the model law in 2006 concerned the form of an arbitration agreement and interim measures and preliminary orders. Most relevant to the theme of my presentation today, however, was the insertion into the model law by the 2006 amendment of a new article 2 capital A, spelling out that in the interpretation of the model law, and I quote, "Regard is to be had to its international origin and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith." and that, and again I quote, "Questions concerning matters governed by the model law which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the model law is based." The fact that uniformity in interpretation had always been contemplated in the framing of the model law perhaps explains why article 2A was the subject of almost no discussion within the working group or in the process which led to answer revision and adoption of the amended model law. What can be inferred is that at least part of the thinking laying behind its insertion was that highlighting its international origin and the need to promote uniformity in its application in the text of the model law would serve as a reminder to courts and practitioners alike of the desiraability of striving to arrive at internationally consistent interpretations of the model law. As one commentator on article 2A explained it at the time, the modern laws basic objective and purpose are better served by the internationalist interpretive approach as the adoption of such an approach will significantly reduce the risk that domestic courts will interpret and apply the model laws provisions in idiosyncratic and counterproductive ways. From the adoption of the updated model law at the international level, it then again fell to each state to decide whether to make commensurate amendments to its domestic legislation.
That brings me to stage four, domestic integration and reinterpretation of the updated model law. Here I turn from a broad survey of international and transnational developments to focus specifically on developments in my home jurisdiction of Australia following the international updating of the model law in 2006. By way of background and explanation, I need to point out that Australia has a federal system of government. The system comprises the Commonwealth of Australia at the national level together with six states and two self-governing territories at the subnational level. As I previously mentioned, the Commonwealth Parliament had enacted the model law to govern international arbitrations as early as 1989. Following the international updating of the model law in 2006, the Commonwealth Attorney General in 2008 announced a review of the existing International Arbitration Act. The result was the enactment in 2010 of the international arbitration amendment act which made clear that the model law given the force of law in Australia is the model law as amended in 2006 and which also removed the ability to opt out of the model law instead providing that the model law is the law that applies to international commercial arbitration. ations in Australia. The attorney general said uh at the time of introducing the 2010 amendment act that the Commonwealth government understood the benefits consistent juristp prudence would bring to the facilitation of international arbitration in Australia.
Domestic arbitration in Australia on the other hand continued into this century to be governed by state and territory legislation formulated in the latter part of the 20th century which operated without reference to the model law and which was being revealed uh by the early 2000s to be increasingly unfit for purpose. The Chief Justice of New South Wales, James Spiegelman, went on record in early 2009 saying, and I quote, "Our uniform legislative scheme for domestic arbitration is now hopelessly out of date and requires a complete rewrite. The review process which preceded the 2010 amendments to the International Arbitration Act provided the opportunity for the sparking of that wider reform. The chief justices of the states and territories wrote to the Commonwealth Attorney General during that process saying that it would not assist Australia's position in relation to international arbitration if the law with respect to domestic arbitration develops in a significantly different manner. In line with this view, the standing committee of attorneys general in Australia agreed to develop a new domestic uniform commercial arbitration legislation to be based on the answer model law. In doing so, the standing committee described the model law as having legitimacy and familiarity worldwide and as being an effective framework, noting that nothing about the content of the model law required it to be confined to international commercial arbitration. Substantially uniform laws applying the scheme of the model law to domestic arbitrations were subsequently enacted by the legislature of each state and territory between 2010 and 2017. This was done by taking the text of the model law and enacting it with some modifications and additions to make it applicable to domestic commercial arbitration. So the result in Australia since 2017 has been that the model law in its pure form as updated in 2006 has applied directly to all international commercial arbitrations by force of Commonwealth legislation. and the text of the model law with some slight modifications has applied to all domestic commercial arbitrations by force of uniform state and territory legislation.
What is particularly interesting about these reforms at different jurisdictional levels in Australia is how article 2A and its interpretive approach have been adopted at each level. At the N national level in Australia with respect to international commercial arbitration, article 2A applies in its pure form. For the domestic arbitration regimes in each state and territory, a slightly varied version of article 2A has been enacted as section 2A of each uniform domestic arbitration act. Article 2A uh of the model law, it will be recalled, requires regard to be had to the need to promote uniformity in the application of the model law across jurisdictions. Section 2A goes further in requiring regard to be had to the need to promote uniformity between the application of the provisions of the domestic arbitration acts to domestic commercial arbitration and the application of the provisions of the model law to international commercial arbitration. What these legislative developments have meant is that Australia now has both an international commercial arbitration regime and a complimentary domestic arbitration regime. each of which is based in a wholesale fashion on the modern law and each of which mandates seeking uniformity and consistency with each other and with the rest of the world in the conduct of international and domestic commercial arbitrations.
Since these legislative developments, three major cases concerning the model law, either in its updated international form or in its domestic form, have been decided by my court, the High Court of Australia. I was a member of the bench that decided each of these three cases and I was chief justice when the second and third of them were decided just last year. I will refer to each of the three cases to illustrate how the updating of the model law and particularly the introduction of article 2A has materially affected the ways in which Australian courts have come to interpret and apply the model law. The first of the three cases was a case called TCL air conditioner and the judges of the federal court of Australia. It was a constitutional challenge to the validity of the provisions of the Commonwealth legislation that gave the model law the force of law in Australia. The challenge was to the ability of the federal court of Australia to enforce and award under article 35 of the model law. It was argued that the enforcement provisions of the model law unconstitutionally vested judicial power in arbitral tribunals. uh unanimously. You might think unsurprisingly, the high court held article 35 valid with some members of the court, including me, making specific reference to the requirement to consider its international origin and international ca application uh when construing the model law. Particularly illustrative of the theme of my presentation, however, was the related challenge to the arbitral award itself in the full court of the federal court of Australia following the high court's decision. In a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Olop and justices Middleton and Foster, the full court of the federal court there said with explicit reference to article 2A, and I quote, "It is not only appropriate but essential to pay due regard to the reason decisions of other countries where their laws are either based on or take their content from international conventions or instruments such as the New York Convention. and the model law. It is of the first importance to attempt to create or maintain a degree of international harmony and concordance of approach to international commercial arbitration. Such is as reflected of the growing recognition of the harmony of what can be seen as the law of international commerce.
The second and third of the three high court cases decided just last year were of uh considerable complexity. Both arose under state arbitration legislation applying the model law to domestic arbitrations. Tesseract International Proprietary Limited and Pascal Constructions Proprietary Limited concerned the question of whether Commonwealth and State proportionate liability regimes applied in a domestic arbitration. The question was whether the liability of one party to another party could be proportionately reduced by reference to the alleged concurrent wrongdoing of a third party who was not a party to the arbitration agreement. By majority, the high court accepted that the liability could be reduced, holding that the inability to join all alleged concurrent wrongdoers to the arbitration did not mean that the substantive rights of the parties were not to be governed by the proportionate liability regimes. The arbitrator was held to have jurisdiction to make an award settling the the dispute between the parties by adjusting their substantive liability in accordance with the substantive provisions of the proportionate liability regimes in the same way as could a court. My own reasons for judgment in that case made reference to the foundational principle of party autonomy in the model law which I explained to be manifested in the model law giving the parties to an arbitration agreement three relevant choices. The first being choice as to the substantive law under article 28. The second being a choice as to the arbitral procedure under article 19 and the third being a choice as to the curial law by reference to the seat of arbitration under article one two. Drawing these threads together I observe that whether an arbitral tribunal can and must apply a particular rule of law in determining a dispute which parties have agreed is to be settled by arbitration. turns on the scope and consequence of each of those three choices of the parties and on the relationship between those consequences. I'll give just two examples from this decision of the complexities that can arise and the importance of taking an internationalist approach to the resolution of those complexities. Forgive me if I get into too much technicality and for those of you who like technicality, forgive me if I gloss over the details. The first example relates to the interplay of the choice as to the arbitral procedure and the choice as to the substantive law. A consideration of the drafting history of the model law shows that the rules of procedure applicable under article 19 were intended to be carved out of the substantive law chosen under article 28. This means that the power of an arbitral tribunal to determine a rule of procedure under article 192 of the model law extends to making a procedural order on a topic that would be regarded as governed by a substantive rule of law under the substantive law. This approach which is the approach I took in Tesseract was in line with the approach earlier taken by the court of appeal of Singapore in a case of Republic of India and Vendata resources. The practical significance in Tesseract was that provisions within the domestic proportionate liability schemes prescribing rules of procedure concerning the notification and potential joiner of third parties who were alleged to be concurrent wrongdoers which would be applicable in proceedings to determine the rights and liability of the of the parties in a court of competent jurisdiction were not applicable in the arbitration proceedings. The second example relates to the interplay between the substantive law and the curial law. A submission was made before the high court in Tesseract that article 28 of the model law requires the arbitral tribunal to apply the substantive law without any outer limit being imposed to the operation of article 34 2B which empowers a supervisory supervising court to set aside an arbitral award if The court finds in the application of the curial law that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration or the award is in conflict with public policy. on this view that was put to the court. Whether the resultant award would be liable to be set aside under article 342V1 or two was a question external to the arbitration in the sense that it was a question which only the supervising court could consider and determine and not a question which the arbitral tribunal could consider at all. This is an argument I rejected. The view I took was that article 28 of the model law should not be construed to compel an arbitral tribunal to engage in the futile exercise of applying the substantive law to produce an award which by reason of its application of that law would be liable to be set aside by a supervising court under article 342B. applying the law or public policy of the place chosen by the parties as the place of arbitration. In adopting this harmonious construction, I referred to a similar approach having been adopted by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in taking the view that an agreement to arbitrate a dispute concerning a non-arbitable subject matter within the scope of article 342B of the model law would be an agreement that was, if not null and void, at least inoperative or incapable of being performed within the meaning of article 33. three of the New York convention and article 8 of the model law. This meant that in the circumstances of tesser act questions as to whether application of domestic provisions of the proportionality regimes as part of the substantive law under article 28 would render the dispute non-arbitral or in conflict with public policy would have been capable of being determined by the arbitral tribunal. as preliminary questions of jurisdiction under article 16. I will spare you the uh third and final uh decision. Uh you can perhaps read about that in the written version of this paper.
I'll come to my conclusion. My theme has been one of dialogue between the international sphere and the domestic sphere in shaping and defining the boundaries of arbitration under the uncertrol model law. I have developed that theme in part by explaining how the model law is now applied in Australia to domestic arbitration as well as to international arbitration in a manner that requires the same internationalist approach to be brought to bear on its interpretation and application in each of those contexts. I finish with the words of Andre Ator, the Hungarian delegate who was largely responsible for the concept of unsatrol making it into the general assembly agenda some 60 years ago. Shortly after its establishment, he wrote that the United Nations, which had until that point only tilled the soil of public international law, was about to set foot upon the land of commercial law, which had been and still was then considered as the reserve domain of sovereign nations. Answer setting foot in the land of commercial law has been a success in its pursuit of efficiency. consistency and coherence. It has engendered not only harmony but comedy and intellectual rigor that we are all here is a testament to the world it has helped to build. Thank you. [Applause]
Thank you sir. Your address was indeed a treasure trove of wisdom garnered and gathered through experience and wide reading. Your incisive insights today have pushed the boundaries of legal thought on arbitration. Before we proceed further, I would request honorable Mr. Justice Subramanyam Prasad Chairperson organizing committee door and judge Delhi High Court. Honorable Mr. Justice Sanjivie Narula, Member Organizing Committee of Chair of the Journal Subcommittee and Judge High Court of Delhi. Honorable Mr. Justice Sachin Duta, Member Organizing Committee of Judge High Court of Delhi and Honorable Mr. Justice Tjascara, member organizing committee of law and also a member of the journal subcommittee and judge high court of Delhi to kindly come to the dis for release of the Delhi arbitration review. [Applause]
May I now request the honorable dignitaries on the dis to kindly release the Delhi Arbitration Review, the journal of the Delhi International Arbitration Center published by the Eastern Book Company, which seeks to foster critical multi-jurisdictional academic research and discussion on contemporary issues in in the arbitration world. [Applause]
Thank you so much. The release of the Delhi Arbitration Review 2025 is much more than a culmination of ink on paper. It is a celebration of the limitless possibilities of arbitration in a globalized world which continues to grow by leaps and bounds in the recent times. On this note, may I now request honorable the chief justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavay to kindly deliver the pleenary address. [Applause]
The honorable chief justice of the Australia High Court, Justice Stefan Gaggler, the honorable chief justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Javendra Kumar Rupad, my esteemed colleagues, my predecessor, the former Chief Justice of India, Honorable Justice Sanju Kana, the former honorable judges of the Supreme Court who are present in large number, the judges of Delhi High Court as well as the other high courts, the former judges of the high courts, the learned additional solid generals present here, Shri Haran the president of the High Court Bar Association, Shri Pinayer, the president of the Supreme Court, Advocates on record association, Shrimati Anjuti Rana, the law secretary, the senior advocates, the members of the bar and the eminent participants from across the globe. I wholeheartedly welcome all of you to the daily arbitration weekend 3. In my capacity as the chief justice of India, it is my pleasure to extend you a warm welcome to the dignitaries and the delegates from over 20 countries across the globe who honor us with their presence today. It's a matter of great pride for me to inaugurate the third edition of this remarkable event, the Dali the Delhi arbitration weekend and to see it evolve into a truly global forum for dialogue, exchange and collaboration in the field of arbitration. I won't take long because today is a Thursday and I see many lawyers present in the gathering and my learned colleagues also they friends this is not an ordinary gathering. I think Delhi arbitration weekend has a rare exception and in my knowledge perhaps the only arbitration gathering hosted by a judiciary of a country. It was with only event which is jointly organized by the highest court of the country and the high court of Delhi. It is not often that you find judges inviting lawyers to talk more rather than lifts.
Arbitration as we all know is one of those deceptively simple words that lawyers can spend lifetime debating. At its core, arbitration is an age old human instinct of resolving dispute by interesting a neutral third party rather than leaving the conflict to foster. As in India, we know that we are having the age-old punch system which could be said to be a foundation of the arbitration. Then we also have a merchant guilds in medieval Europe from the amitu process of Masai tribe in Africa to the traditional dispute settlement methods used by Aboriginal societies of Australia. Here I must also acknowledge the Australian arbitration regime with its deeprooted engagement with customary and modern forms of arbitration reflecting a long-standing respect for consensual dispute resolution. Most cultures and communities across times have devised their own procedures and practices of arbitration. In
In many ways, the development of arbitration precedes the development of formal court systems. In the last 80 years, the era after World War II has seen the development of a largely harmonized global order of arbitration for the resolution of commercial disputes.
The post-World War II period marks the true beginning of international arbitration as we know it today. The New York Convention of 1958 became the cornerstone, ensuring that arbitral awards could travel across borders with relative ease. The UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985 added uniformity, giving states a blueprint to modernize their arbitral regimes. These developments created, for the first time, a truly transnational legal order in commercial dispute resolution.
The architecture of modern arbitration is built on the edifice of conventions and instruments. However, its true success depends on how national legal systems, particularly the courts and institutions, embrace and implement them. Undoubtedly, it has been the courts and institutions that have been the harbingers, supporters, and sentinels of this development.
The concept of arbitration has survived the test of time because it balances autonomy with accountability, efficiency with thoroughness, and freedom with fairness. Without credible institutions and vigilant codes, arbitration risks either becoming captive to power or collapsing under mistrust.
In the last decade, India has made significant strides in its endeavor to stake its claim on the global arbitration center stage. We have made significant investments in infrastructure, both public and legal. The legislations have received significant attention. The number of arbitral institutions has increased manyfold, and the amount of judicial attention towards the field of arbitration has grown exponentially.
At the heart of this change lies the growing recognition that strong institutions are the true catalyst of arbitral reform. Institutions not only provide a structured forum for the resolution of disputes but also lend credibility, efficiency, and consistency to the arbitral process. The emergence of Indian arbitral institutions, coupled with the judiciary's supportive stance, has significantly altered perceptions about India as an increasingly reliable jurisdiction for arbitration.
In recent years, India's arbitration landscape has grown steadily with a stronger legal framework and courts taking a supportive role. Institutions like the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) have become trusted forums. This has strengthened India's position as a reliable seat for arbitration, attracting parties from home as well as abroad. Particularly in Delhi, DIAC was established by the Delhi High Court in 2009, which has lately emerged as a leading arbitration institution. Over the years, DIAC has steadily expanded its capacity to handle both domestic as well as international disputes, continually refining its procedures and governance to match global standards. DIAC's own statistics reflect this steady rise. In 2024, it disposed of 915 cases and conducted over 15,000 hearings during the year. DIAC's evolution reflects a commitment to timely, transparent, and impartial dispute resolution. Over the years, DIAC has become a respected forum for parties seeking a credible alternative to traditional court litigation in India. While the road ahead is lengthy, India has set a sure pace towards its goal of becoming a favorable arbitral destination.
Even in Australia, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration has emerged as a reliable forum by maintaining modern rules with efficient administration and close engagement with the government and professional bodies. Its gradual but steady growth demonstrates that credibility is earned not overnight but through consistent efforts and transparency. Our own institutions, such as the Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BIAC), are on a similar path, and there is much to be learned from the patient, institution-led consolidation that Australia has witnessed over the years.
In addition to the recent development of arbitration institutes in India, it is also heartening to see the Arbitration Bar of India, a professional association dedicated to advancing alternative dispute mechanisms throughout India, taking steps in setting up task forces on some of the most important issues faced presently by the Indian arbitration regime. These cover a wide canvas of issues, from drafting a code of ethics and developing protocols for construction disputes to looking at reforms in investment treaty arbitration, improving diversity in appointments, and exploring how technology and artificial intelligence can be used responsibly. These tests demonstrate that the arbitration professionals themselves are taking charge of the future, which also highlights that India's arbitration community is not just catching up with global practice but also contributing in shaping the reforms agenda.
Judicial decisions, perhaps more than any other factor, shape the credibility and the trajectory of international arbitration. Legislation may lay the framework, but it is the courts that give life to the law and clarify its ambiguities. In India, this influence is vividly illustrated by a series of recent judgments. A Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court struck down unilateral appointment clauses in public contracts, affirming that equal treatment of the parties is a non-negotiable principle. In *Gayatri Balasami*, another Constitution Bench held that the courts cannot modify the substance of arbitral awards, signaling a clear commitment to the finality of awards. Further, the Supreme Court, in a decision, underscored that enforcement of foreign awards may only be refused on the grounds of bias in the rarest of rare cases. The Delhi High Court, in recognizing the legitimacy of third-party funding, aligns India with global best practices by facilitating access to arbitration without exposing funders to undue liability.
Each of these rulings, and many others, have had a ripple effect both domestically as well as internationally. For domestic parties, they strengthen faith in arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution process. For the foreign community, they demonstrate that Indian courts have moved away from the interventionist tendencies of the past and now act as guardians of the arbitral procedure. This evolution has not happened overnight. It represents a conscious recalibration by the judiciary in order to align India with international best practices.
The comparison with other jurisdictions is instructive. Australian courts, for instance, have consciously cultivated a reputation for minimal interference, building a framework where arbitration thrives on predictability and restraint. Singapore and the United Kingdom offer similar examples where judicial clarity has been the bedrock of arbitral competence. India's trajectory shows that we too are learning the same lesson. Judicial restraint is not a sign of abdication but of maturity and strength.
At the same time, the sheer volume of arbitration-related litigation in India reflects a paradox. Parties continue to approach courts not necessarily because they doubt arbitration but because they trust the judiciary to step in when needed. The challenge lies in maintaining the delicate balance: offering oversight without overreach, support without substitution.
Judicial decisions do far more than resolve individual disputes. They shape perceptions and define reputations. They determine whether India is seen as a preferred seat of arbitration. A single prohibition ruling in New Delhi can resonate in boardrooms in London, Singapore, or New York or Sydney, influencing where parties seat their disputes. That is the true weight of judicial influence. It goes beyond doctrine into the realm of confidence, credibility, and trust. And let me assure you, India is not just ready for this challenge. The evidence is strong, the arguments compelling, and the verdict unanimous: India is delivering.
While we have made significant strides in establishing ourselves as a prominent commercial and legal destination, there's still room for growth. One area that requires attention is ensuring a level playing field in arbitration between larger corporations and smaller businesses, particularly micro, small, and medium enterprises. Although legislative and policy initiatives have been promising and commendable, it is essential to expedite their implementation and benefits to all stakeholders. By doing so, we can unlock the full potential of arbitration as a tool for commercial efficiency rather than letting it become a source of prolonged dispute.
We are also working hard to confront the question of cost and accessibility, leading by example rather than catching up to the rest of the world. Arbitration is designed to be faster and less procedurally onerous than litigation. While arbitration holds great promise, there's an opportunity to bridge the gap between its potential and the current experience. By addressing challenges like arbitration fees, procedural expenses, and timelines, we can make arbitration more efficient and accessible for all parties. This creates a paradox where the very parties who most need quick and affordable remedies are driven away from arbitration due to the associated expenses. Therefore, by streamlining processes and managing costs, we can unlock the full benefits and potential of arbitration for companies and individuals alike.
The spirit of arbitration, or as the French call it, *le esprit de l'arbitrage*, hinges on a collaborative approach and goes beyond just the parties involved. It requires arbitrators, courts, and institutions to proactively identify and discourage unmeritorious litigation and speculative claims that aim to harass, delay, or prolong proceedings. Therefore, by prioritizing cooperation over confrontation, we can foster a more credible, dependable, and business-friendly arbitration culture in India. Dialogue among stakeholders is a proven path to achieving this cooperation, ultimately enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the arbitration process.
Today, I believe we are at a tipping point, one that is decisively tipping in the right direction. We can confidently say that India is maturing and developing into a leading arbitration jurisdiction on the global center stage. With our unwavering determination, we are striving to establish ourselves as a preferred global arbitration hub by pushing boundaries and exceeding expectations. The optimism about India's evolving arbitration landscape is also resonated internationally. Recent editions of Arbitration Weeks worldwide have made India focus panels. The latest White & Case Queen Mary Survey on International Arbitration also recognizes New Delhi as an emerging seat of arbitration alongside other established hubs like London, Singapore, and Geneva. This recognition underscores that the synchronized efforts of the judiciary, the legislature, and the Indian institutions are showing results and reassures us that the future of arbitration is indeed bright in India.
To achieve our goals, we must invest in capacity building of the stakeholders and strengthen our institutions. The Delhi Arbitration Weekend is itself one of the finest examples of such initiatives. It is not merely a conference but a forum for exchanging dialogues and refining visions of a shining future. As we inaugurate this year's edition of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend, let us remind ourselves that arbitration is not just a legal mechanism. It is a trust-building exercise, a cornerstone of commercial serenity, and a bridge between cultures and economics. The judiciary and the institutions must continue to work hand in hand, ensuring that this trust is never eroded but only deepened.
Before I conclude, I must place on record my appreciation to the Honorable Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and the Honorable Judges of the Delhi High Court, as well as the members of the organizing committee, for taking painstaking efforts for making this event a grand success. I have seen the Honorable Chief Justice and the members of the committee, the judges, and the other lawyer members working tirelessly for the last so many months to make today's event a great success. I'm also grateful to the Honorable Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for speaking some good words about me, though I don't know whether I deserve them. With humility and persistence, I have no doubt that we will not only contribute to the global discourse but also shape it in meaningful ways. On that note, I thank you all for your presence, your commitment, and your faith in this collective endeavor. May the deliberations of this weekend inspire us, challenge us, and push us closer to the goal of India, the goal of making India a true leader in international arbitration. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, sir, for that truly illuminating and thought-provoking address. Your words have not only set the intellectual agenda for this conference but have also reminded us of the profound responsibility we all share in shaping the future of international arbitration. On this note, may I now request Honorable the Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavai, to present a memento to the Honorable Chief Justice Stephen G. Gageler, High Court of Australia. [Applause]
With this, we come to the end of the inaugural session of the third edition of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend. I would like to thank the honorable guests, both on and off the dais, for sparing their valuable time. There's more in store for all of you, though. As our discussions draw to a close, a new musical journey is about to begin. I invite you all to stay on and immerse yourselves in an evening of exquisite Indian classical music. So let us all allow our minds, which have been enriched by the knowledge disseminated by our speakers, to be soothed by the timeless melodies of our heritage. We look forward to sharing this beautiful experience with all of you. [Applause]
I request the guests to be kindly seated. We'll be starting with the musical in a very short while. We'll be starting with the musical program in a very short while. We have with us Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt, who's a recipient of the Padma Bhushan and the Grammy Awards, and his talented troupe. Kindly stay back. Thank you.
Hello. I think please take your seats, and this cultural meeting is going to start. I request everyone to kindly take their seats. We'll be starting with the cultural program in a very short while. Right, sir. You need to keep an eye. The best part of the evening is still in store. I request everyone to be kindly seated. We'll be starting with the cultural program in a very short while. Now, the role of volunteers starts. How many have gone to the washroom? I think so. I think they'll come back. Somebody go out and tell people, right? I think the volunteers are doing that. The main problem is they should have been out. Yes. I request the audience to kindly assemble back. We'll be starting with the cultural program in a very short while. People that will not see where are the volunteers? I'm not even telling them to sit. That's where the volunteers. I request our esteemed guests to be kindly seated. We'll start the program again in a very short while. People are coming in. So I think people are coming back. Okay. They should have stayed back. It is their event. They're coming back. The volunteers. Mhm. We'll be starting the program now. I request everyone to be kindly seated. Right? So they're coming. I think he's going to check with the volunteers. Someone has gone there. Someone has gone there. They're getting ready. They're getting ready. I request all of you to be kindly seated. We'll be starting the program now. I request the people at the back there to be kindly seated. At least starting. I request everyone to be kindly seated. The artists are here with us. We'll be starting the program now. Volume artist. I request everyone to be kindly seated. The artists are here with us, and we'll be starting the program now. I request everyone to kindly call your colleagues who are here with us today to assemble back in the auditorium. You wouldn't want to miss a musical event such as this. I request everyone to kindly assemble back. We'll be starting with the cultural in a very short while. I request the people sitting at the back to kindly come in front. We have some seats there. I'm sure you'll be better able to enjoy and appreciate the program from here. I request all of you to be kindly seated. Even the volunteers may kindly sit. We'll be starting with the program now. [Music] I request the people at the back to kindly move up. So, can we start? They are organizers. Just see. I request the volunteers and the organizers to be kindly seated. We'll be starting with the program now. People at the back are requested to come in front. Keep moving. So, curtains. Namaskar. Good evening. As the golden hues of this evening settle and a magical atmosphere begins to weave its spell around us, I extend a heartfelt welcome to all our esteemed guests, music connoisseurs, and lovers of timeless melody. We'll be starting with the program now. I cordially welcome on stage Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and his talented troupe. [Applause] I cordially welcome on stage Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and his talented troupe. Music, as we know it, is a universal language. Music, as we know it, is a universal language. It speaks of joy, of sorrow, of devotion, and of love. Tonight, we shall have the immense privilege of experiencing a new dialect of this language, one born from a creative genius who dared to dream differently. Be prepared to witness not just a performance but a conversation, a dialogue between a maestro and his instrument, between a soul and its most profound expression. I'm talking about Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt, a recipient of the Padma Bhushan and the Grammy Award, who is a living legend, a man whose fingers don't just pluck strings but paint emotions on a canvas of sound. He isn't just a musician; he's an innovator who gave the world a new instrument for classical music. His journey is a testament to the power of re-imagining tradition, a tribute to the idea that some of the most profound art is born from the fusion of the old and the new. He proved that music knows no boundaries and that a single artist's vision can bridge worlds. His legacy is one of unity and harmony, a reminder that the world is more connected than we often realize. Each of his performances shows that the instrument is merely an extension of the soul and that true music flows from within. Sanskrit. Mahag Vishiatra or Tal. Foreish Mohanar G, the grandson of Pandit Vishwa Mohan G, who will be on the Mohan Vina. Pandit Ram Kumar Mishra G on Tabla, who's also, who is also the grandson of late Pandit Anokhilal Mishra and the son of the legendary vocalist Padma Vibhushan Pandit Chhannulal Mishra G. [Applause] On this note, ladies and gentlemen, women, let us now prepare to be enchanted by the mesmerizing musical beauty of the Mohan Vina. Let the sound of the Mohan Vina wash over you like a gentle river, carrying you to a place of peace and sublime beauty. [Music] My humble pronam abadan to everybody here. Our first rag is Shyam Kalyan, an evening raga. We will be presenting a slow jala and then followed by a vilambit gat in a 16-beat cycle, and then drut again in trital, and there will be some sawal jawab also. And this music is completely unrehearsed, not pre-composed, not pre-rehearsed. Improvisation takes place while we perform. Please bless us. Thank you very much. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Laughter] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Woo! Woo! [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Mhm. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Uh-huh. Oh, [Music] heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Oh, [Music] doo. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Woo! [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Heat. Yeah. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Hey, [Music] heat. Hey. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] Heat. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh, [Music] hey. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Yeah, [Music] [Music] heat. [Laughter] [Music] Hey. [Music] Heat. [Music] Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Everybody [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Uh, next one is a very short rag joke, duggat, only. [Music] Hallelujah. Oh. Oh. [Music] M. Forever. Oh. [Music] Oh. [Music] H. Oh, [Music] woohoo. [Music] Woohoo! [Music] Woo! Hey, [Music] M. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Ooh. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Uh [Music] concluding with one day matram. Okay. He mentioned to me he wants to listen to the composition of mine which brought honors to India, the Grammy Award in '94. If you permit, I will play. [Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey, [Music] hey, [Music] hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Heat. [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] I feel hey. [Music] [Music] What an incredible evening of music and artistry. As the last notes of the Mohan Vina fade, they leave an echo not just in this hall but also in our hearts. Shanti. Oh, Pandit Vishwa Mohan G's performance today has not only showcased his artistic brilliance but has also filled this gathering with warmth, inspiration, and a spirit of shared community. We extend our deepest gratitude for his generosity of time and talent. On the occasion of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025, the Honorable Supreme Court of India, the Honorable High Court of Delhi, and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre are privileged to present Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt with a framed citation, a shawl, and a patam for his timeless dedication to music, his role in preserving and elevating India's cultural heritage, and his memorable performance at the inaugural session of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025. May I now request Honorable the Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavai, to felicitate Pandit Vishwa Mohan Bhatt. [Applause] [Applause] It's time now to felicitate the incredibly talented artists who accompanied Shri Vishwa Mohan Bhatt on stage today. Their skill, passion, and dedication elevated the performance to new heights. May I now request Honorable Justice Bhushan Ram Krishna Gavai, Honorable the Chief Justice of India, and Justice D.K. Adhikari, Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, to present a shawl to Atarvi. [Applause] May I now request Honorable the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to kindly present a shawl to the legendary Shri Ram Kumar Mishra G. [Applause] [Applause] I hope this journey of melodies has touched your soul and filled your hearts with a sense of tranquility. Just as the sun sets to rise again, this evening concludes with the promise of more such musical and magical moments. I thank you all for being such a wonderful and appreciative audience. As we embark on this weekend of fruitful engagements and insightful experiences, I hope you'll carry back many beautiful memories. Kindly join us for dinner now. I request our esteemed guests, except the dignitaries, to take the exit on the left. Thank you. Thank you.