Enhelion Blogs

THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND COMPETITION LAW

This article has been authored by Riya

Intellectual property rights grant the owners exclusive legal rights, limiting others’ access to the same, and thus reducing market competition. Competition law/anti-trust law, on the other hand, seeks to promote competition and increase market access. As a result, we can see that these two topics are diametrically opposed. However, another school of thought holds that the two realms can not only coexist but also complement each other.

As a result, the goal of this article is to examine how IPR and competition law are linked and interdependent. This study focuses on the fact that in order to develop the country’s economic efficiency, both IPR and Competition Law must coexist, and this study provides guidelines to help improve the efficiency of the Indian system of Competition law and patent offices.

To learn more about Competition Law in India, enrol for Advanced Certificate in Competition Law.

1. INTRODUCTION

Any discussion of the relationship between competition laws and intellectual property rights must start with a definition of these two terms. Intellectual Property Rights are intended to encourage inventors’ creativity by granting them certain rights over their inventions that protect their interests in them. These are exclusionary rights, which grant inventors temporary rights to exclude others from using their IPR. Competition law, on the other hand, exists to promote economic growth by restricting rights arising from private property in order to prevent anti-competitive behaviour.

Competition law seeks to preserve the competitive nature of markets because competition among market forces is critical in protecting consumers from abuse. In India, dominance is not a problem in terms of competition law; however, the abuse of that dominance is. Following liberalisation and privatisation, India has shifted to more open market policies that encourage more innovation and rapid economic growth. The Indian Competition Act was enacted in this context to preserve market competition for the benefit of consumers.

To learn more about the intellectual property regime in India, enrol for Diploma in Intellectual Property: Law and Management. 

2. THE OBJECTIVES OF IPR AND COMPETITION LAW

It has been observed that IPR and competition law are incompatible. It is because IPR grants the innovators of a new product a monopoly that others do not have access to, or it simply protects those owners from commercial exploitation of their products by granting them exclusive legal rights. Competition law, on the other hand, is opposed to static market access and competition rules, specifically the abuse of monopoly position. As a result, it should be noted that the term “competition” is used differently by IPR and Competition Law.

The main goal of granting licences in IPR is to encourage competition among prospective innovators while simultaneously restricting competition in various ways. After a specified period, the rights revert to the public domain, effectively ending the competition. The primary goal of competition law is to prevent abusive market practices, stimulate and encourage market competition, and ensure that customers receive high-quality goods and services at a reasonable price.

According to a UNCTAD[1] document on ‘examining the interface between the objectives of competition policy and intellectual property,’ the main goal of IPR is to encourage innovation by providing appropriate incentives. This goal is met by granting inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a set period of time, allowing them to recoup their R&D investments.

Instead, the goals of Competition Law are to promote efficiency, economic growth, and consumer welfare. To achieve them, competition law limits, to some extent, private property rights for the benefit of the community. Competition is thought to be beneficial to the economy because it fosters innovation and increases competitiveness.

Thus, we can say that IPR is about individual rights that provide monopoly only to the owner of the innovated product in order to protect his invention from commercial exploitation, whereas Commercial Law protects the interests of the market and the broader community, rather than an individual, by limiting private rights that may harm the community’s wellbeing and thus encourages market competitiveness. Despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed, their ultimate goal is consumer welfare.

To learn more about Competition Law in India, enrol for Advanced Certificate in Competition Law.

3. THE INTERFACE BETWEEN COMPETITION LAW AND IPR

It is obvious that, at first glance, the goals of IPR and competition law appear to be at odds. They appear to be irreconcilable, with conflict and friction unavoidable. Whereas friction may be a part of the overlap between IPR and competition law, where they may clash in any case, the truth is that they also work in tandem. Their goals are aligned with their ultimate goal: to improve the welfare of consumers in society by facilitating market innovation.

They achieve this goal through various means. Whereas IPRs give innovators and producers monopoly rights to be adequately reimbursed for their research and development costs, competition law protects the rights of the entire community by limiting private rights, including those granted by IPRs, to ensure the market is free of anti-competitive behaviour, resulting in more innovation and better products for the consumer. In this way, IPRs and competition law ultimately serve to improve consumer welfare by facilitating innovation.

This goal of enabling innovation necessitates a balancing act of competition law to ensure that IPRs are not exploited and abused while still allowing enough room and incentives for a vibrant market for innovation and creativity.

The various sections which speak about the inevitable connection between IPR and competition law are:

Section 3(5) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 exempts reasonable use of such inventions from the purview of competition law, implying that it only protects reasonable conditions imposed by the IPR holder and that any unreasonable condition imposed can be dealt with under competition law.

Section 4 of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, deals with abuse of dominant position, and it only prohibits abuse, not the mere existence of a dominant position. What is important to note for our current discussion is that no exception has been made for IPRs under this Section, possibly because IPRs do not confer dominant position in the market, and even if they do, this Section does not prohibit the mere existence of dominant position, but only the abuse of dominant position.

Section 4(2) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, which treats enterprise action as abuse and applies equally to IPR holders,

Section (3) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 prohibits anti-competitive practices, but this prohibition does not limit “any person’s right to restrain any infringement of, or to impose reasonable conditions necessary for protecting any of his rights” conferred by IPR laws such as the Copyright Act, 1956, the Patents Act, 1970, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (48 of 1999), and the Designs Act, 2000.[2]

To learn more about the intellectual property regime in India, enrol for Diploma in Intellectual Property: Law and Management. 

4. DIFFERENCES

The conflict between competition policy and the regime of intellectual property rights has been most contentious in the context of patent laws. The methods used to achieve their mutual goals give rise to the interface between competition policy and patent law. On the one hand, competition policy requires that no unreasonable restraints on competition exist; on the other hand, patent laws reward the inventor with a temporary monopoly that protects him from competitive exploitation of his patented article.[3]

IPR protection is a tool for encouraging innovation, which benefits consumers by allowing for the development of new and improved goods and services, as well as promoting economic growth. It grants innovators the right to legitimately bar other parties from commercialising innovative products and processes based on that new knowledge for a limited time. In other words, the law provides innovators or IPR holders with a temporary monopoly to recover costs incurred during the research and innovation process. As a result, they earn just and reasonable profits, giving them an incentive to innovate.

Competition law, on the other hand, is critical in closing market gaps, disciplining anticompetitive practices, preventing monopoly abuse, inducing optimal resource allocation, and benefiting consumers with fair prices, a wider selection, and higher quality. As a result, it ensures that the dominant power associated with IPRs is not overcomplicated, leveraged, or extended to the detriment of competition. Furthermore, while competition law seeks to protect competition and the competitive process, which in turn encourages innovators to be the first in the market with a new product or service at a price and quality that consumers want, it also emphasizes the importance of stimulating innovation as competitive inputs, and thus works to improve consumer welfare.

Despite their differences, the two regimes tend to coexist on various grounds where both disciplines prevail by limiting each other’s rights. The interface between these two areas of law is widely anticipated in many sectors of the economy, including the pharmaceutical sector, where there is a lack of consumer knowledge, which gives rise to the problem of Pay for delay/Reverse delay settlements, discrimination in patient assistance programs, ever-greening of patents, and so on, and for which the concept of ‘Compulsory Licensing’ was addressed to draw the balance between intellectual property rights and competition law so that owners of intellectual property rights cannot abuse their privileges and stifle market competition by abusing their dominant position.

To learn more about Competition Law in India, enrol for Advanced Certificate in Competition Law.

5. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

In recent years, the EU and the US have received a large number of cases involving IPR and competition law disputes. However, there are very few cases in India involving IPR and Competition Law disputes; in fact, it is still in its infancy.[4] However, in Aamir Khan Productions vs. the Director-General[5], the court addressed the issue of competition law and intellectual property law for the first time. The Bombay High Court ruled in this case that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has jurisdiction to hear all IPR and competition law cases.

Conflicts over intellectual property rights (IPRs) were typically resolved before the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission), the predecessor to the Competition Commission. However, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which enforces The Competition Act, 2002 throughout India, now handles cases involving the applicability of competition issues to both IPR and Competition Law. This Commission was established on October 14, 2003, and it went into full operation in May 2009. The CCI is made up of a chairperson and six members.[6]

Entertainment Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd[7]. In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of conflict between intellectual property rights and competition law. The Court observed that, even if the copyright holder has a complete monopoly, such a monopoly is limited if it disrupts the smooth operation of the market, which would violate Competition Law, and the same was true with the refusal of licence. Undoubtedly, intellectual property owners can reap the benefits of their innovations by issuing licences, but this is not an absolute.

To learn more about the intellectual property regime in India, enrol for Diploma in Intellectual Property: Law and Management. 

6. CONCLUSION

Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights are inextricably linked, necessitating a balanced understanding to appreciate the true scope of their complex and multifaceted interactions in modern India’s dynamic markets. It cannot be denied that there is some necessary tension and friction in their overlap; where competition law seeks to prevent abuses that may arise as a result of monopolistic power, intellectual property rights seek, in many situations, to grant exactly such monopolistic powers to incentivize innovators to innovate. It is in the best interests of Indian society to have the two regimes operate in such a way that there is widespread competition while also providing enough protection for inventors to recoup their investments in research and development.

These two ends point to a single goal: consumer benefit through the facilitation of a robust environment for innovation. Greater innovation is enabled by organisations competing with one another to produce better and more affordable products and services, whereas IPRs enable greater innovation by providing greater incentives to innovators to benefit from their innovations.

In terms of jurisdiction, India would benefit greatly from greater maturity in the legislative framework governing the extent and scope of the CCI’s jurisdiction. Competition law should balance the IPR regime by imposing curbs wherever the exercise of IPRs exceeds “reasonable conditions,” as defined in Section 3(5) of the Indian Competition Act, 2002, but such curbs should not go beyond the extent to which the exercise of IPRs causes an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

[1] http://unctad.org/meetingsen/sessionalDocuments/ciclpd36_en.pdf

[2] Conflict of IPR in Competition Law available at: https://libertatem.in

[3] The interface between IPR and competition law. Available at: https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/interface-between-ipr-and-competition-law.html

[4] Forrester Ian S. Competition Law and IPR: Ten years on the debate still flourishes, http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2005/2005 pdf.

[5] 2010 (112) Bom L R 3778.

[6] Competition Commission of India from https://en.m.wikipedia.org

[7] 2008(5)OK 719

This blog post has been authored by Dikshak Pankaj Soni

INTRODUCTION:

1. The industry of the Maritime is correlated to those acts connected to waterways and/ or to the sea. The Maritime industry now-a-days impacts almost all the sectors/industries, mainly in terms of import and export (transportation) from one land to another (mostly Cargo).
2. The second form where the Maritime industry holds its coverage is on the naval architecture, navigation, ocean engineering, exploration, drilling etc., this mainly exhausts the requirements of minerals and oil rigs in furtherance to transportation (mostly Marine Casualties).
3. The third major form where the Maritime Industry holds its significant value is for direct consumers purpose i.e. cruise ships for travelling, tourism and recreational purpose (mostly Passenger Claims)

To learn more about the Companies Act and the roles of a Director, explore the Diploma Course on Maritime Law. 

MODUS-OPERANDI AND ACTS COVERED:

I. Marine Casualty:

i. Collision:

• Due to issues caused by navigation or communication barrier/ faults/ miscommunication, there are chances of collisions between vessels travelling on/ against/ cross waved baths thereon. It is to be considered that a vessel is difficult to handle for all its acts and requirements.
• In case of such collision, the master of the ship shall take all due endeavours for saving the lives of people on board as well as the ship to avoid maximum damage being/ to be caused due to such collision. Immediately thereafter the master shall make an entry in the official logs signed by him and the crew member, the same is then informed to the central government.
• The Acts concerning this act shall include the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, (Part X) and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulation, 1975, such acts are in conscience with adopting the convention on the international regulation for preventing collision at sea, 1972.

ii. Pollution:

• Pollution is caused by acts such overseas be it due to collision/ due to negligence by the naval, ocean engineering, exploration or drilling, or by the travel, recreational or tourism. The kinds of pollution that can be caused could be oil pollution damage, pollution by garbage and ships, pollution of oil by ships, pollution due to collision resulting in spillage in marine environment, pollution by sewage from ships, pollution by harmful substance carried by ship/ noxious substance carried by ships.
• Such pollution attracts civil liability to the polluter. There are multiple conventions, rules and regulations that govern such pollution, one of which are International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damages, 1992, similarly there are multiple rules and regulations (2008 to 2010) enacted under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, (XB, XC and XIA) which governs such acts in regard to pollution in maritime.

iii. Salvage:

• Due to collision, there are chances that the vessel might drift or start sinking, salvage is a process of saving such a vessel to the best possible extent, and delivering the same to the owner.
• There ought to be a salvage agreement, where the owner shall pay a certain amount to the salvager for its services mentioned therein, the same is governed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Part XIII) and the Merchant Shipping (Wreck and Salvage Rules), 1974.

iv. Wreck Removal:

• When the vessel is either due to collision or malfunction, is not able to salvage or is/ started to sink to the sea bed, the process involved shall be construed as a Wreck Removal.
• Either the owner takes full responsibility for such Wreck Removal, or the finder of such wreck shall be paid his fees/ salvage fees in such a case, or the central government may appoint a receiver to investigate and take possession of such wreck to sell such wreck under their custody. Similarly to salvage, it is governed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Part XIII) and the Merchant Shipping (Wreck and Salvage Rules), 1974 but additionally also by the Indian Ports Act, 1908.

v. Limitation and Liability:

• The losses caused due to collision, salvage or wreck are then subject to certain limitations and liabilities. The owner of the vessel, charter of the vessel, operator, master, crew and servant of the vessel, shall preliminarily limit their liabilities for claims under such vessel, following such the salvor, the defaulter/ neglect responsible for such actions, and later the insurer of such liability shall be limit to such liabilities.
• The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Part XA) and the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Liabilities of Maritime Claims Rules), 2015 and its amendment rule of 2017 shall be governing the topic considered herein.

vi. The Limitation fund and Investigation:

• The losses so caused shall be paid In terms of liabilities secured, such liabilities can be termed limited, wherein the person entitled to limit such liability shall make a reference to the appropriate jurisdictional High Court constituting a limitation fund, the High Court may decide such matter and may direct depositing such funds in the Court or through a bank guarantee.
• The Director General of Shipping and the Maritime Marine Department shall carry out an investigation in such a case in respect of provisions under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Part XII) which deals with investigation and enquiries.

To learn more about the Companies Act and the roles of a Director, explore the Diploma Course on Maritime Law. 

II. Cargo Claims:

• The term cargo mostly includes goods imported or exported. Taking into consideration the sender and the recipient, the problems that may arouse are the extent of bills of lading that defines the title of certain property sent and to be received, the carriage and its variety, feature of any kind supplied by the consignor and outward carriage i.e. from inland to outland.
• The acts governing such claims shall include The Carriage by Goods Act, 1925, The Bills of Lading Act, 1856, The Major Ports Authority Act, 2021, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, the Admiralty Act, 2017, The Marine Insurance Act, 1973, the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, etc.

III. Passenger Claims:

• Passenger Claims shall include the losses suffered by the passenger due to any shipping incident, negligence, cancellation, refund of deposit money, delay in sailing, injury or death.
• The acts governing such claims are vested in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (part VIII) and the Admiralty Act, 2017, etc.

IV. Arrest and Security:

• When a claim is made in regard to any acts as foreseen, and the owner/ master/ operator of the ship chooses to default in its legitimate duties in support of such claim, a claimant may make necessary reference vide an Admiralty Suit to the jurisdictional High Court for seeking an arrest of such vessel on such territorial waters and may pray for securing statutory maritime claims and liens.
• The Admiralty Act, 2017 governs such claims of arrest, moreover, in case of outstanding freight and other charges, the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 can also exercise its lien over the cargo in its jurisdiction. The security in such a case can be prayed in terms of cash deposit or bank guarantee. Even the Arbitration Act can entail its applicability in terms of dispute resolution, where in terms of interim relief such arrest can be procured by praying it before the concerned Court.

To learn more about the Companies Act and the roles of a Director, explore the Diploma Course on Maritime Law. 

CLAUSES:

While performing an international transaction in the Shipping and Maritime Industry, one must give due importance to the rules and regulations enacted by the respective jurisdictional countries and the same shall be in conscience with the provisions laid down by International Maritime Organization. Considering the modus-operandi of the Maritime Industry as aforestated, the most common types of agreements in the Maritime Industry include Marine Insurance Contracts, Import and Export Contracts, Transportation Agreement, Logistic Agreement, Affreightment Contracts, Freight Forwarding Agreements, Vessel Lease Agreement, Ship Charter Agreement, Ship/ Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement, Ship Mortgage Agreement, Ship Management Agreement, Ship Repair, Ship Salvage and Wreck Removal Agreements, Dockage Agreement, Seafarer’s Employment Agreement, etc. Apart from the acts as aforestated, the agreement shall be on the basic principles of the Contract Act. The clauses to be included in the Agreements of Maritime Industry shall include/ safeguard/ clarify all the modus-operandi mentioned in the above chapter, certain of which are mentioned hereinbelow:

1. Parties, recitals, and their purpose:

This is a preliminary clause of the contract which tends to mention the name address details and business of the parties, the recital which mentions the reason which lead the parties to execute that contract, and the brief purpose of that particular contract whose acceptable/ governing criteria’s shall be mentioned in the clauses mentioned thereafter.

2. Risk Exclusion Clause:

This clause specifically mentions what kind of risk is to be excluded viz: loss in case of negligence, wilful misconduct, insurance exclusion, unsuitable condition and packing, breach of condition/ warranties, causes due to strikes, lockdown, labour disturbance, riots, civil commotion/ unrest, etc.

3. Risk Covered Clause:

It shall mention the risk covered, such as salvage charges, loss due to unforeseen circumstances and mechanical malfunction, fire insurance, jurisdictional coverage, done in general governing law and practice, etc.

4. Risk Attachment Clause:

This clause shall mention the subject matter of the insured which is supplied by other party of the insured. It specifically mentions what the insurance shall not attach until the risk of loss or damage to the subject matter insured shall be transferred to the Assured.

5. Minimising Loss Clause:

In mention of this clause, it includes the acts done by the duty of assured recovery of the loss. It mentions the reasonable purpose of averting, preserving, and minimising the loss. Certainly, there are certain legislative provisions which govern minimising loss o be covered by the insurer/ owner.

6. Duration and Transit Clause:

The subject matter mentioned herein shall include the duration/ transit time of one location to another, the same shall also mention exceptions in terms of unforeseen circumstances such as weather, salvage, collision etc.

7. Change of Voyage Clause:

This clause mentions and safeguards the service provider in case a destination/ transit route is changed due to unforeseen circumstances, or a decision relating to minimising loss, shall also include the time and mode of transmitting such information.

8. Termination of Contract Clause:

The Clause shall mention subject matter wherein circumstances are beyond the control of the service provider and when such the contract of carriage/ cargo/ passenger is to be terminated either at a port or at a particular location other than that of the specified destination named therein.

9. Avoidance of Delay Clause:

This clause shall mention when the service provider shall undertake acts to avoid reasonable delay to the extent and circumstances, viz: in circumstances of unforeseen weather and change of transit time and route, etc.

10. Claims Clause:

This clause mentions what kind of claims are to be covered by the Service Provider/ it’s insurance company either in terms of insurable interest, forwarding charges, constructive total loss, and the insured value calculation. In certain Agreement, this clause shall also mention the manner, how claims are to be requested, passed, validated, etc.

11. Piracy and Malicious Damage Clause:

The maritime industry is subjected to piracy by sea pirates who intend to cause theft/ unrest/ untenable request, such mention of clause mentions where in case of deliberate damage to or deliberate destruction of the insured subject-matter, by the wrongful act of any person or persons causing malicious acts vandalism sabotage or piracy.

12. Security Clause:

This clause shall mention the safety and security that the service provider tends to provide to the service receiver either cargo/ passenger, in terms of any theft/ malicious acts, vandalism/ sabotage/ piracy/ unforeseen circumstance, mechanical malfunction/ collision, etc.

13. Weapon, Chemical, Radioactive exclusion, etc. Clause:

This clause is at times considered paramount to all the clauses mentioned in the contract, where without the due permission of law of land, approvals, permissions, and policy of the fearers, certain unwarranted and not-permitted contents/ articles shall not be allowed. This clause also nullifies the liability of the Insurer in such a case.

14. Governance of Convention:

This clause mentions that the particular contract shall be governed by the provision of which particular international conventions and its specific articles. There are certain chances wherein either of the party’s country of origin is not a signatory party to such convention, and hence clarification in that regard is specifically mentioned.

15. Preserve of Wild Fauna and Flora Clause:

This clause mentions that the vessel is not derogatory/ causing harm to any natural reserves/ or not causing any pollution and shall be in conscience with the international conventions in that regard. Similarly, the wild fauna and flora shall be preserved in its truest sense.

16. Good Faith Clause:

This clause shall in its true values shall disclose clearly and accurately all material facts related to the risk involved by executing such contract, or by procuring the service of such service provider.

17. Subrogation Clause:

The term subrogation means the right which one person has by standing in place of another and availing himself of all the rights and remedies of the other, whether already enforced or not. This clause shall be more specifically included in an insurance contract.

18. Collision Clause:

This clause shall include what the service provider shall have liability towards, where there is a collision between two vessels/ or with any object tent to cause collision. There shall be a mention as to whether the damages and compensation to be paid is the liability of the Service Provider of the Insurer/ or the tent to choose advantage of ‘both to blame collision clause’.

19. Salvage Clause:

This clause mentions that, in the case where there has been a mechanical malfunctioning, collision, or any act turning the ship to be salvaged, then in such a manner the claim, cost, reason/ purpose, manner and the company to undertake salvage shall be specifically mentioned herein.

20. Wreck Removal Clause:

This clause mentions that in a manner where the ship is wrecked, there needs to be a mention where the manner/ purpose/ insurance claim shall be mentioned therein.

21. Termination of Transit Clause:

This clause mentions the criteria eg: wreck, collision, weather condition, force majeure, terrorism, war etc, then in such a case the vessel’s transit shall be terminated in total and the claim in that regard shall be payable in the manner prescribed in the claim clause.

22. Represent and Warrant Clause:

This is a general clause, wherein there is a mention of each party that they represent/ warrant towards each other and performance of their part in such modus-operandi.

23. Waiver Clause:

This is a general clause, and it shall mention where one of the parties (provider) due to certain temporary circumstance, becomes unperformable, what acts shall be considered as wavier or not, similarly, it mentions when another party (receiver) may cause wavier of certain rights prejudice to him.

24. Law and Practice Clause/ Party’s Jurisdiction Clause:

This clause shall mention the law which is to be followed in due course/ or at the time of enforcement. In terms of specific jurisdiction, there shall be a mention of such specific jurisdiction and the law/ practice and convention to be governed with.

25. Disclaimer and indemnity Clause:

This clause shall specifically mention what the service provider tends to disclaim its liability towards, similarly there may also be a reference as to what the service provider tends to indemnify the service receiver towards, or vice versa.

26. Dispute Resolution Clause:

In similar to the aforesaid, this is also a general clause, where there is a mention of Dispute if in case arisen and the provision in the way such dispute is to be resolved wither first by mutually, then by mediation, or by way of Arbitration. In the case of Arbitration, there needs to be a specific mention in terms of the Arbitration clause. The language and location of such Dispute Resolution are also to be mentioned.

27. Force Majeure Clause:

This is a general clause, which mentions the wavier (temporary) of one of the parties for the performance of their part of the contract, in a situation beyond the control of either of the party, e.g.: natural calamities.

JURISDICTION AUTHORITY (SUBJECT TO LAW OF LAND AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS):

1. Concerned High Court where certain territorial waters have jurisdiction for, and the kind and nature of relief which is claimed is beyond the powers/ finding/ disposal of the Mediation/ Conciliation or the Arbitration Tribunal.
2. Arbitration Tribunal shall have limited jurisdiction, subject to the applicable Arbitration law of the land, disputes relating to contract act/ validation/ interpretation etc.
3. Mediation and Conciliation shall be subject to the decision of the parties effecting, and the mode/ veracity of dispute that may have arisen.

To learn more about the Companies Act and the roles of a Director, explore the Diploma Course on Maritime Law.