Why CORD only administers cases with a clear CORD Clause

In recent years, Indian courts have consistently reiterated a fundamental principle of arbitration law: fairness in the appointment of arbitrators is non-negotiable. One of the most influential decisions in this regard was the Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. judgment, where the Supreme Court held that unilateral appointments of arbitrators by one party are impermissible.

This judgment fundamentally reshaped the arbitration landscape. It underscored that even institutions or third parties involved in appointments must do so within a framework that ensures neutrality, transparency, and adherence to due process.

CORD’s Conscious Policy Decision

At CORD, we took a deliberate and principled decision in the aftermath of Perkins Eastman:

We only administer cases where CORD is explicitly identified as the institution authorised to appoint arbitrators and/or administer disputes in the contract or loan agreement.

This was not a mere operational adjustment. It was a conscious choice to align with the spirit of the law and to protect parties from the very challenges and risks that have led courts to strike down arbitral awards in recent years.

By doing so, CORD ensures that:

No scope for unilateral appointments exists.
If the agreement does not name CORD, we do not step in. This prevents disputes over whether an appointment is valid.

Parties know the rules upfront.
When the CORD Arbitration Clause is included, the process of arbitrator appointment, case management, and communication is clearly set out in advance.

Awards are safeguarded against procedural challenges.
The enforceability of awards depends heavily on procedural integrity. Our clause eliminates avoidable risks.

Why This Matters for Businesses and Financial Institutions

Recent judgments, including the Radiance Galore vs Yes Bank Ltd. decision (Bombay High Court, 2025), have reinforced the courts’ stand against unilateral appointments—even when carried out by ODR institutions through automated algorithms

For lenders, NBFCs, and businesses, this means that unless the dispute resolution clause is carefully drafted and explicitly names an administering institution, the entire arbitration process risks being invalidated.

By ensuring the CORD Clause is part of contracts and loan agreements, parties benefit from:

1. Transparent, neutral appointment of arbitrators from CORD’s vetted panel.
   
2. Time-bound, documented communications managed through our secure platform.
   
3. Compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and global best practices.
   

CORD’s Commitment

As an institution, CORD is committed to building trust, enforceability, and fairness into every arbitration we administer. Our conscious call to limit our involvement to cases where CORD is explicitly named reflects our broader philosophy:

1. To empower parties with dispute resolution that is accessible, impartial, and credible.
   
2. To avoid procedural irregularities that undermine confidence in arbitration.
   
3. To set a standard for ODR institutions in India and beyond.
   

Takeaway: If you are drafting or reviewing contracts and loan agreements, make sure to include the CORD Arbitration Clause. It is the simplest and most effective way to safeguard your arbitration process from being struck down on procedural grounds.