Below, some common elements are included in an arbitration agreement that is generally not considered an essential element, but must be included if the parties wish it to be mentioned in the contract. While this case shows the importance of clear wording when including an arbitration clause in any context, the decision in an insurance context highlights the importance of ensuring as much as possible the consistency of the dispute resolution clauses used within an insurance tower to minimize the risk of litigation. In its recent decision in malini Ventura against Knight Capital Pte Ltd & Others  SGHC 225, Singapore High Court dismissed an application for a stay of SIAC`s arbitration proceedings within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act (ILO), on the grounds that there was no arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court of Singapore first outlined the appropriate approach to determining these issues and decided that the Court of Justice could rule on the matter as a matter prior to its own jurisdiction. In this case, it is again emphasized that Singaporean courts respect the principle of jurisdiction, which gives the court the first word on jurisdictional issues. This claim arose from SIAC arbitration proceedings brought by the defendants against the applicant. The applicant allegedly received a guarantee (the “guarantee”) for the loan from a third party. The guarantee contained an arbitration agreement that provided for an arbitration procedure by SIAC for any question it raised “including all questions relating to its existence, validity or termination.” The third-party borrower fell behind and the defendants invoked the security in a claim that was not honored. The respondents initiated SIAC arbitration proceedings against the claimant for non-payment.
The parties may agree on the language of the arbitration and the place where the venue is to be used in the arbitration. If such an agreement does not exist, it is for the court to choose the language(s) and the place. It is important to decide what the language of the arbitration is in the agreement itself. Especially in a country like India, where Hindi and English are not the only two languages spoken, it can be extremely difficult to settle and resolve disputes. In addition, the choice of arbitration procedure is very inexpensive, as it allows you to pay exorbitant fees to translators. However, the tribunal refused to adopt the English position in its entirety, given that the English arbitration law differs in many respects from the ILO. (a) in particular, the Arbitration Act in English is not entirely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which strictly describes judicial intervention in arbitration (it does not include it), (b) the Arbitration Act in English deals with both national and international arbitration proceedings, while the ILO deals only with international arbitration proceedings; and (c) in England, it is possible for the parties to obtain a contract in favour of the court decision on such matters, thanks to the ability of a court to determine its own substantive jurisdiction. .