Indian Law Lab

GUEST POST: BY AYUSHI H DANGRE There has always been a persisting confusion between a maritime lien and a maritime claim. Although, they may both overlap each other on various levels, they are essentially different from one another in the basic aspect that a maritime lien would pass on along with the vessel, irrespective of any change in ownership and would prove to be more in favor of the claimant, whereas a maritime claim ceases to exist if the vessel is sold to a third party. In case of a maritime claim, the claimant can no longer claim against the vessel if there is a change in ownership of the vessel, but only against the owner. It goes to show that, in case of a maritime claim, the claimant has a right in personam, that is, he can only claim against a particular person (natural or legal). However, in case of a maritime lien, the claimant has a right in rem, that is, his right is protected against the world at large. Maritime claims maybe right in rem or personam . The Admir

¶23. It is necessary to find an urgent solution for this problem to save arbitration from the arbitration cost. Institutional arbitration has provided a solution as the Arbitrators' fees is not fixed by the Arbitrators themselves on case to case basis, but is governed by a uniform rate prescribed by the institution under whose aegis the Arbitration is held. Another solution is for the court to fix the fees at the time of appointing the arbitrator, with the consent of parties, if necessary in consultation with the arbitrator concerned. Third is for the retired Judges offering to serve as Arbitrators, to indicate their fee structure to the Registry of the respective High Court so that the parties will have the choice of selecting an Arbitrator whose fees are in their `range' having regard to the stakes involved. ¶24. What is found to be objectionable is parties being forced to go to an arbitrator appointed by the court and then being forced to agree for a fee fixed by such Ar

I. INTRODUCTION Arbitration decision has limited grounds on which a party may challenge or appeal enumerated orders u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'Arbitration Act') passed by the court/tribunal and from no other orders. The reason why an appeal is not allowed from any other orders enumerated u/s. 37 of the Arbitration Act is to provide finality, to the parties concerned. A right to appeal is not a natural right or inherent right, it is merely a statutory right. The legislature was conscious enough while stating "an appeal shall lie from the following orders and from no others", to restrict the appeal only to sec. 37 Arbitration Act. The embargo on appeals in Section 37 is an absolute and categorical one. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is a special act dealing with the arbitrations, especially limits the extent of judicial intervention inasmuch as it provides that no judicial authority shall intervene except whe