ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENCES IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS
Keywords:
the UNCITRAL Аrbitrаtiоn Rules, the Private International Law Act (PILA), the New York Convention, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the oil organization Yukos.Abstract
The Arbitration Act 1996 states that a request for a stay must be conceded before the individual against whom the procedures were brought has made any move to respond substantively to the case and no sooner than after fitting technical advancements (assuming any) are made to recognize the lawful procedures. The ZPO provides that the challenge must arise prior to the start of the oral hearing on the matter of the dispute. When raising an issue with the courts of law, jurisdiction is of the utmost important for the assurance of whether the option to arbitrate may be postponed. Noncompliance may result in the court continuing to consider the subject of the dispute and, for the most part, make a choice that will exert jurisdiction upon the parties. Despite the fact that the arbitral tribunal may not be limited by the court’s choice, it is, on a basic level, necessary to contemplate upon a protest by one of the parties, regardless of whether the option to arbitrate has been postponed.
