Determination of rules of procedure
Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with determination of rules of procedure. The arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) The arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
(2) Subject to this Part, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting its proceedings.
(3) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), the arbitral tribunal may, subject to this Part, conduct the proceedings in the manner it considers appropriate.
(4) The power of the arbitral tribunal under sub-section (3) includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.
Section 19, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Party autonomy is the backbone of arbitration and includes freedom to determine the procedure to be followed (recognised as a guiding principle of the 1996 Act). A contractual two-tier arbitration clause (first instance + appellate arbitral review) is permissible under Indian law and not opposed to the fundamental policy of India. First referred question answered in the affirmative; enforcement question deferred. DATE-VERIFIED Reportable Judgment order-41.pdf dated 15.12.2016 matching order index.
On this section: Teaches s.19's party autonomy to agree rules of procedure — including multi-tier/appellate arbitral process — as a core structural principle of the Act.
-
Ntpc Limited vs Afcons R. N. Shetty and Co. Pvt. LTD Jv
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arbitrators do not have unilateral power to determine their own fees. Where parties have fixed fees by agreement or court has fixed fees by order, arbitrators are bound by such fees. Where no agreement or court order exists, arbitrators may fix reasonable fees only after transparent consultation with parties at preliminary stage, and such fees are subject to court review for reasonableness under Section 39. The Fourth Schedule is binding on ad hoc arbitrations post-Amendment Act 2019. The term 'sum in dispute' in Fourth Schedule refers to aggregate of claim and counter-claim. The ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs in Serial No. 6 applies to total fee, not just variable component. The fee is per individual arbitrator, not per tribunal. Arbitrators cannot charge separate fees for claims and counter-claims; they must charge single fee based on aggregate sum in dispute.
On this section: Parties free to agree on procedure; tribunal may conduct proceedings as it considers appropriate if no agreement
-
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Tuff Drilling Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An arbitral tribunal which has terminated proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to non-filing of claim by the claimant retains jurisdiction to consider an application for recall of the order terminating the proceedings if the claimant shows sufficient cause. The tribunal does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 25(a). The phrase 'where without showing sufficient cause' in Section 25(a) contemplates that sufficient cause can be shown either before or after the termination order is passed. If sufficient cause is shown, the arbitral tribunal can accept the statement of claim and permit the claimant to file the claim even after the time fixed under Section 23(1) has expired. The principles underlying Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can be invoked by the arbitral tribunal to recall orders passed under Section 25(a) on sufficient cause being shown. The non-use of the phrase 'the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate' in Section 25(a), as opposed to its use in Section 32(3), indicates that the legislature intended that if the claimant shows sufficient cause, the proceedings can be re-commenced.
On this section: Arbitral tribunal not bound by Civil Procedure Code or Indian Evidence Act but can draw sustenance from fundamental principles; parties free to agree on procedure
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 19
What have the courts held on Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (15 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Teaches s.19's party autonomy to agree rules of procedure — including multi-tier/appellate arbitral process — as a core structural principle of the Act. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 19, section 19 Arbitration Act, section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (15 Dec 2016).
When did Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 19, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.