Resurrecting the debate on ‘due process paranoia’ in Centrotrade: Paranoia or Judiciousness?

Abstract

Abstract Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc v Hindustan Copper Ltd, rejected an application for non-enforcement of a foreign award and justified its ‘pro-enforcement’ bias. The Apex Court was of the opinion that there was no due process violation as the arbitrator provided enough opportunities to the parties to present the case but the respondent failed to abide by the timelines. Although, the Court has correctly interpreted the scope of due process but unfortunately, failed to address the repeated extension of arbitral proceeding at the cost of efficiency and speed. On a closer study, the Apex Court’s ruling resurrects a puzzling question of the arbitrator’s perceived reluctance to reject dilatory tactics of the respondent during arbitral proceeding. This article examines the implications of the ruling on arbitrators as they may be more exposed to the unscrupulous attempts of the parties to wilful delay under the garb of ‘due process paranoia’.