However, such an approach is unfounded: since both parties are inhabited by resident parties of the Republic of Kazakhstan under Article IV of the Convention, it is impossible to identify a specific arbitration institution. This provision applies only to arbitration agreements between the two legal entities which, at the time of the conclusion of such an agreement, have permanent residence or their seat in the various contracting states (Article I of the Convention). Therefore, such a clause is pathological and unenforceable. The law gives parties enormous freedoms in choosing how they prefer to arbitrate. This is often the end, because most parties do not care enough about the content of this important clause. Parties to an arbitration agreement may choose, among other things, the number of arbitrators, their qualifications, the seat of arbitration, the rules to be followed, the type of hearings that may take place and even agree that the arbitrator will make an unreasonable (as illogical) arbitral award. Even sometimes, the names of two or more arbitration institutions are indicated in the same way as the names of the parties. On this occasion, it is not possible to remedy such a gap in the arbitration agreement, unless this deficiency can be corrected by the mechanisms defined in Article IV of the 1961 European Convention on International Trade Arbitration (convention). Simply put, the parties must ensure that the arbitration agreement is clear and leaves no room for creative and ingenious interpretations. Their intention to resolve disputes through arbitration and how such arbitration should be implemented must undoubtedly pass. It should be remembered that the devil can be in the details and often. The cornerstone of the alleged judicial intervention in India may have been the Supreme Court decision of Bhatia International v.
Bulk Trading S.A.1, where it was established that the provisions of Part 12 of the Act would apply to all arbitration proceedings and related proceedings. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that if such arbitration were to take place in India, the provisions of the first party would be imperatively applicable and that the parties would be free to depart from them only to the extent permitted by the deviant provisions of Part 1. In the case of international commercial arbitrations, the provisions of Part 1 apply, unless the parties expressly or implicitly exclude all provisions or one of their provisions. In this case, the laws or rules chosen by the parties would prevail. A part 1 provision that is contrary to or excluded from this act or provisions does not apply. In asserting this, many argue that the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates for judicial intervention in international commercial arbitrations. It should be noted that the law presented in this case in the case of Bharat Aluminum Company Limited Vs. Emperor Aluminum Technical Service Inc. was referred to a constitutional bank of the Supreme Court and the hearings report. However, until a new law is passed by this constitutional bank, this judgment is in the practice of the right winger.
In the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, which contains an inaccurate name of the arbitration institution or the applicable rules of arbitration, it should be possible to establish an arbitration institution or arbitration rules. An arbitration agreement can only be declared unenforceable if it is impossible to determine the actual intent of the parties. In the face of so many decisions, it is important that the compromise clause thus conceived is not vague, confused or somewhat uncertain. It must clearly state the intention of the parties to refer to arbitration any or certain disputes, as may be the case, and how such arbitration should be implemented. Some key points of an arbitration agreement can be as well as under: thus, in the current world of laptops, tablets, blackberries, iPads, near-prehistoric fax machines and other non-mentioned technologies, it is not entirely impossible or difficult for the parties to record in writing the existence of a dispute settlement agreement taking into account the same thing at an arbitration