In Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co.2, a three-judge bank of the Supreme Court found that the supreme judge`s powers under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act are administrative in nature and that the judge or his appointees do not act as a judicial authority when they appoint an arbitrator. It was also decided that when the case is referred to the Supreme Justice or his candidate in accordance with Section 11 of the Act, it is essential to take into account the legislative intent to immediately initiate the arbitration process and to raise all contentious issues before the Arbitration Tribunal itself. This decision was upheld by a five-judge bank of Konkan Railway Corporation v. Rani Constructions3 5. It is not in dispute to rule on all matters entrusted to the authority under Article 6, paragraph 1, of this article under paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article. When appointing an arbitrator, the Authority takes into account all the qualifications required by the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and considerations that may ensure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator and, in the case of an individual arbitrator or a third party arbitrator, also takes into account the appropriateness of appointing an arbitrator of a nationality other than that of the parties. 1. The parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators. 1. The functions covered by Article 11, paragraph 3, 11, paragraph 4, 13, paragraph 3, and 14 are performed by the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Article 14 of this agreement contains a compromise clause.

It states: the functions of a court are determined by a combination of the provisions of the arbitration agreement and by the procedural laws that apply to the seat of arbitration. To what extent the laws of arbitration headquarters allow for “party autonomy” (the ability of the parties to define their own procedures and regulations) determines the interaction between the two. The Korean Arbitration Act is the most important right of arbitration in the Republic of Korea. The official body that settles disputes through arbitration is the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Korean lawyers and companies increasingly prefer arbitration to litigation. [23] The number of arbitrations in Korea is increasing year on year. [24] SPB-Co. and Boghara Polyfab extended the scope of Section 11 to a large number of issues that could have been decided by the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act. These decisions have been widely criticized for opposing the principle of jurisdiction and contributing to delaying the formation of arbitration tribunals.