What is fast track arbitration under Section 29B?
Section 29B of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lets the parties agree in writing, before or at the time the tribunal is appointed, to have their dispute decided on written pleadings, documents and submissions. An oral hearing is held only if all the parties ask for one or the tribunal considers it necessary, and the award is due within six months of the tribunal entering upon the reference.
Key takeaways
- Parties can choose the fast track procedure under Section 29B only by written agreement, before or at the time the arbitral tribunal is appointed.
- Under the procedure, the tribunal decides on written pleadings, documents and submissions, and holds an oral hearing only if all the parties ask for one or it considers one necessary.
- The award is due within six months of the tribunal entering upon the reference; if more time is needed, Section 29A(3) to (9) apply.
- Once the tribunal is appointed, the parties can still agree a documents-only process under Sections 19(2) and 24(1), but without the Section 29B time limit or its rule on oral hearings.
- The article argues for amending Section 29B so that all the parties can opt in later, before oral evidence begins, subject to the tribunal's reasoned acceptance and without extending the time allowed under Section 29A.
On this page (9 sections)
The need for a faster procedure often becomes apparent only as the arbitration progresses. Once the pleadings are complete and the issues have narrowed, the parties may find that the dispute can be decided on documents alone, or that a quicker resolution has become necessary. By then, however, they may have missed the stage at which they could opt for the fast track procedure under Section 29B of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). The provision allows parties to adopt this procedure “at any stage either before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal” (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 29B(1)).
The law therefore asks parties to make this choice when they know least about their dispute, and withdraws it when they know most. This article considers whether that restriction is justified and whether it can be relaxed without causing delay.
The Fast Track Procedure Under Section 29B
Section 29B has been in force since 23 October 2015 (Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, ss. 1(2), 15). Where the parties agree in writing, the tribunal decides the dispute on written pleadings, documents and submissions, and holds an oral hearing only if all the parties ask for one or it considers one necessary to clarify certain issues. The parties may choose a sole arbitrator. The award is due within six months from the date on which the tribunal enters upon the reference; if it is not made within that time, Section 29A(3) to (9) apply. The fees are as agreed between the arbitrator and the parties (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 29B).
Section 29B(1) opens with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act”, so once the parties have agreed to the fast track procedure, it applies in place of the ordinary procedure under the Act. The difference is most visible in relation to oral hearings. Under the proviso to Section 24(1), the tribunal must hold oral hearings at an appropriate stage if a party asks for them, unless the parties have agreed that no oral hearing will be held. Under Section 29B(3)(c), however, the request of one party is not enough; an oral hearing is held only if all the parties ask for one or the tribunal considers it necessary. The time limit is also stricter. The six months under Section 29B(4) run from the date on which the tribunal enters upon the reference, whereas in a domestic arbitration conducted under the ordinary procedure, the twelve months under Section 29A(1) begin only after the pleadings are complete. The procedure is therefore best suited to disputes that turn on documents rather than on witness evidence.
The Time Limit for Opting In
29B. Fast track procedure.
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the parties to an arbitration agreement, may, at any stage either before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal, agree in writing to have their dispute resolved by fast track procedure specified in sub-section (3).” (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 29B(1))
Section 29B(1) uses the words “at any stage”, but these must be read with the words that follow, “either before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal”. Reading “at any stage” in isolation would render this qualification meaningless. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the 2015 Bill referred more broadly to the parties agreeing in writing “at any stage” (Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015, Statement of Objects and Reasons, para. 6(vii)), but the enacted provision expressly limits when the parties may opt for the fast track procedure, and it is the enacted text that governs.
There is also a practical difficulty with allowing parties to opt in after the tribunal has been appointed. By that time, the composition of the tribunal and the fee arrangement will usually have been settled, and the six-month period for making the award runs from the date on which the tribunal enters upon the reference. The Act does not define when a tribunal enters upon the reference. The original Section 29A(1) carried an Explanation which linked this to the date on which the arbitrators received written notice of their appointment, but that sub-section was substituted in 2019 and the present text contains no such Explanation (Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, s. 6). If the parties agree to the fast track procedure at a later stage, the six-month period may therefore already have expired.
Options Available After Appointment
Even after the tribunal has been appointed, the parties can agree to simplify the procedure. Section 19(2) allows them to agree on the procedure to be followed by the tribunal, and Section 24(1) allows them to agree that no oral hearing will be held (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss. 19(2), 24(1)). Such an agreement does not, however, bring the arbitration under Section 29B. The parties may adopt a documents-only process, but they cannot claim the six-month time limit in Section 29B(4) or the rule on oral hearings in Section 29B(3)(c).
The time limits in Sections 23(4) and 29A will therefore continue to apply. The pleadings must be completed within six months from the date on which the arbitrator or arbitrators receive written notice of their appointment (Section 23(4)). In a domestic arbitration, the award must be made within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings (Section 29A(1)). The parties may, by consent, extend this period by a further six months (Section 29A(3)), and any extension beyond that requires an order of the court (Section 29A(4)). In an international commercial arbitration, the twelve-month period is only a target, as the award is to be made as expeditiously as possible (proviso to Section 29A(1)).
Consent, Fairness and the Limits of Procedural Autonomy
Any agreement to accelerate the process, whether under Section 29B or under Sections 19 and 24, operates within Section 18, which requires that the parties be treated with equality and that each party be given a full opportunity to present its case (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 18). In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), 2024 INSC 857, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the principle of equality in Section 18 binds not only tribunals but also the “parties while giving expression to party autonomy”, and that it applies in “all procedural contexts” (para. 68). The principle is equally relevant to agreements that alter the arbitral procedure, since party autonomy cannot be exercised in a manner that compromises equality between the parties.
The Telangana High Court drew a similar line for oral hearings in ITC Ltd v. Wide Ocean Shipping Service Ltd, CRP No. 4481 of 2007 (decided on 29 July 2022). Reading Sections 24 and 29B together, it held that “there must be express consent by both parties to dispense with oral hearing” (para. 22). That observation was made in proceedings to enforce a foreign award, not in a case under Section 29B, and is therefore persuasive rather than binding. Together, the two decisions indicate that one party cannot impose a documents-only procedure on the other, and that any agreed change must leave room for oral evidence where fairness requires it.
The Position Under the SIAC Rules 2025
The SIAC Rules 2025 treat entry into the Expedited Procedure and exit from it as two separate questions.
Entry. The Expedited Procedure applies where the parties agreed to it “prior to the constitution of the Tribunal” (Singapore International Arbitration Centre [SIAC], 2025, r. 14.1). Without such agreement, a party may apply to the Registrar “at any time prior to the constitution of the Tribunal” in the cases specified in the Rules, which depend on the amount in dispute or on whether the circumstances of the case warrant it (SIAC, 2025, r. 14.2). The President decides the application after considering the views of the parties (SIAC, 2025, r. 14.3). In either case, the procedure must be adopted before the tribunal is constituted.
Exit. Once the procedure applies, the tribunal may, “in consultation with the parties and the Registrar”, order that the arbitration “shall no longer be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure”, and the same tribunal continues to hear the case under the ordinary procedure (SIAC, 2025, Sch. 3, para. 8). While the Expedited Procedure applies, the award must be made within six months of the constitution of the tribunal, unless the Registrar extends the time (SIAC, 2025, Sch. 3, para. 6).
The ability to leave the Expedited Procedure after the tribunal has been constituted does not mean that parties can opt into it at the same stage. The SIAC Rules allow the procedure to be discontinued, but do not provide a corresponding option to adopt it after constitution (SIAC, 2025, r. 14; Sch. 3, para. 8). Parties who realise only later that their dispute could be resolved more quickly therefore cannot move to the expedited track under the SIAC framework either. The table below compares the Indian and SIAC regimes on four questions relevant to such a change of procedure.
| Fast track procedure | Section 29B of the Act | SIAC Rules 2025 | Proposed reform |
|---|---|---|---|
| When must the procedure be chosen? | Before or at the time the tribunal is appointed, by written agreement (Section 29B(1)). | Before the tribunal is constituted, by agreement (Rule 14.1) or on one party’s application (Rule 14.2). | The parties should be able to agree in writing at any point before oral evidence begins (proposed). |
| Can one party seek it alone, and who decides? | No. The procedure applies only if all parties agree (Section 29B(1)). | Yes, in defined cases (Rule 14.2). The SIAC President decides after considering the parties’ views (Rule 14.3). | Consent of all parties should remain essential, as ad hoc arbitration has no institution to decide such a request (proposed). |
| What if the procedure must change after constitution? | The Act is silent. The parties may still agree to a faster procedure under Sections 19(2) and 24(1). | Entry after constitution is not permitted (Rules 14.1 and 14.2). The tribunal may discontinue the procedure after consulting the parties and the Registrar, and the same tribunal continues to hear the case (Schedule 3, paragraph 8). | The sitting tribunal should accept or decline a switch on limited grounds and continue to hear the case (proposed). |
| What deadline applies, and can it be extended? | Six months from the date the tribunal enters upon the reference (Section 29B(4)); any extension is governed by Section 29A(3) to (9) (Section 29B(5)). | Six months from constitution; the Registrar may extend the time (Schedule 3, paragraph 6). | Six months from the tribunal’s acceptance, capped by the time remaining under Section 29A(1) (proposed). |
Note. Compiled from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and SIAC (2025).
India can adopt SIAC’s approach to procedural changes without adopting its exact rule. Under that approach, a request to change the procedure after the tribunal is constituted is decided by an impartial decision-maker after hearing the parties, the same tribunal continues, and any new time limit runs from a clearly recorded date. In ad hoc arbitration, the tribunal itself can decide the request. The same approach could also allow parties to opt into the fast track procedure after constitution, which the SIAC Rules do not currently permit.
Allowing the Fast Track Procedure After Appointment
Section 29B(1) could be amended to allow the parties, by written agreement, to adopt the fast track procedure after the tribunal has been appointed, provided they do so before oral evidence begins. A few authors have already expressed this view (Dalal, 2023; Jha, 2025). Until oral evidence begins, the record consists mainly of documents, and a change of procedure does not deprive either party of its witnesses. Once witnesses are being examined, less time can be saved and the risk of unfairness is greater. The option should therefore remain open until the recording of oral evidence begins or, where no oral evidence is to be led, until the hearings on the merits begin. A hearing on procedural matters alone should not end it.
A separate rule is needed on the time for making the award. The six-month period in Section 29B(4) runs from the date on which the tribunal enters upon the reference, and will often have expired by the time the parties agree to change the procedure. Nor should a change of procedure give the parties a fresh period, since parties close to the end of the Section 29A(1) period could then obtain more time without the court’s supervision. The award should therefore be made within six months from the date on which the change takes effect and, in a domestic arbitration, no later than the end of the time then remaining under Section 29A(1). A change to the fast track procedure would then shorten the arbitration but could not lengthen it. If more time is needed, Section 29B(5) would continue to apply Section 29A(3) to (9), and the court may extend the time under Section 29A(4) “either prior to or after the expiry of the period”, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd v. Berger Paints India Ltd, 2024 INSC 686.
The tribunal should also have a clear role. The arbitrator accepted the appointment on certain terms as to time and fees, and a change of procedure would alter those terms. The change should therefore take effect only when the tribunal accepts it in writing within a short fixed period, such as fifteen days. If the tribunal does not respond within that period, the request should be treated as refused. The tribunal should be able to refuse only for recorded reasons, namely that a party would be denied a full opportunity to present its case under Section 18, that the dispute cannot fairly be decided within the shorter period, or that the arbitrator cannot continue on the agreed terms. If the tribunal refuses, the arbitration should continue under the existing procedure, and the refusal should not by itself be a ground for terminating the tribunal’s mandate or setting aside the award.
The tribunal already appointed should continue, even if it has three members, since Section 29B(2) permits but does not require a sole arbitrator. The fees agreed at the time of appointment should also continue, unless the parties and the arbitrator agree otherwise in writing. The right to be heard would also be protected. Section 29B(3)(c) would still allow an oral hearing, and the requirement of express written consent from every party addresses the concern raised in ITC.
These changes would need only a short amendment to Section 29B. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 does not propose any change to Section 29B (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2024), and the issue therefore remains open.
Conclusion
The present limit in Section 29B(1) ensures that the tribunal is appointed on known terms and that the six-month period begins on a known date. However, it shuts out the parties at the stage when they are best able to judge whether their dispute can be decided on documents alone. The SIAC Rules 2025 show that a change of procedure after constitution can be handled without disturbing the tribunal. A limited amendment allowing all the parties to opt in before oral evidence begins, subject to the tribunal’s reasoned acceptance and to an award period that cannot extend the Section 29A timeline, would keep the benefits of the present limit and remove its main drawback.
Until the law is amended, parties should decide whether Section 29B is to apply when drafting the arbitration agreement or, at the latest, when the tribunal is appointed, and should record that decision in writing. Once the tribunal is in place, any faster procedure must be agreed under Sections 19(2) and 24(1), in writing, and the tribunal’s acceptance should be recorded. A party whose tribunal proposes to proceed on documents alone without a written agreement should object without undue delay. Under Section 4, a party that knows of such a departure and continues with the arbitration without objecting is deemed to have waived its right to object (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 4).
The firm’s Arbitration and Dispute Resolution practice page describes the areas of arbitration it works in.
Common questions
What is fast track arbitration under Section 29B?
It is a procedure the parties can adopt by written agreement, in which the tribunal decides the dispute on written pleadings, documents and submissions. An oral hearing is held only if all the parties ask for one or the tribunal considers it necessary to clarify certain issues. The parties may choose a sole arbitrator, and the fees are as agreed with the arbitrator.
When must the parties opt for the fast track procedure?
Before or at the time the arbitral tribunal is appointed. Section 29B(1) says the parties may agree “at any stage”, but those words are qualified by “either before or at the time of appointment of the arbitral tribunal”. After appointment, the parties can agree a simpler procedure under Sections 19(2) and 24(1), but that does not bring the arbitration under Section 29B.
What is the time limit for the award under Section 29B?
Six months from the date on which the tribunal enters upon the reference. If the award is not made in that time, Section 29A(3) to (9) apply, so the parties may extend the period by consent and any further extension needs the court.
Can one party insist on a documents-only arbitration?
No. Section 29B applies only if all the parties agree in writing. Outside Section 29B, the proviso to Section 24(1) requires oral hearings if a party asks for them, unless the parties have agreed that none will be held. The Telangana High Court has said there must be express consent by both parties to dispense with an oral hearing.
References
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India).
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 33, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015, Bill No. 252 of 2015, Statement of Objects and Reasons (India).
- Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), 2024 INSC 857 (India).
- Dalal, D. J. (2023, April 29). Fast track arbitration and the need to amend Section 29-B of the Arbitration Act. Bar & Bench.
- ITC Ltd v. Wide Ocean Shipping Service Ltd, CRP No. 4481 of 2007 (Telangana High Court, July 29, 2022) (India).
- Jha, M. (2025, July 10). Reconsidering fast track arbitration: A legislative case for amending Section 29B of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. LiveLaw.
- Ministry of Law and Justice. (2024). Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Government of India.
- Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd v. Berger Paints India Ltd, 2024 INSC 686 (India).
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre. (2025). Arbitration rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC Rules 2025).
This article is general information about the law of India as at the date of its last review. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship. Readers should take advice on their own facts.