DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW

PROJECT ON:

RES JUDICATA IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. PRASENJIT KUNDU AKSHITA GUPTA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)- VIII sem.

Enrollment No.: 130101011

R.No: 011
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a great enthusiasm of satisfaction and a matter of privilege to work on a project of
Alternative Dispute Resolution Law. I express my deep gratitude to my teacher Mr. Prasenjit
Kundu. He helped me understand and remember important details of the project work. I am
thankful to the honorable Vice Chancellor, Prof. Gurdeep Singh and the Dean (Academics)
Prof (Dr.) C.M. Jariwala, who provided me all possible resources for the successful completion
of this project. Without their guidelines, the project would not have worked successfully and
effectively. At last but not the least, I am thankful to my parents and friends who encouraged
and motivated me to make the best possible efforts for the completion of this project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 4
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA ...................................................................................................... 5
RES JUDICATA IN COMMON AND CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES ................................................ 7
RES JUDICATA IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ........................................................... 10
EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA ON ARBITRAL AWARDS IN INDIA ........................................ 13
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 17
 INTRODUCTION
Arbitration provides speedier settlement of commercial disputes, whether domestic or
international in character. In the wake of globalization of trade and commerce and also for
effective implementation of economic reforms in 1990s, a new Arbitration Law based upon the
Model Arbitration Law formulated in accordance with the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was passed by the Indian Parliament repealing the
earlier laws on the subject of arbitration.

The Act aims to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international
commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, besides giving statutory recognition to the conciliation, provides for
the constitution of the arbitral tribunal to conduct the arbitral proceedings and making of the
award in case of both the domestic and international commercial arbitrations. The award made
by the arbitral tribunal is final and binding upon the parties and is enforceable as a decree of a
Civil Court.

An important feature of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that it tries to minimize
the supervisory role of the courts1 by allowing the appointment of arbitrators2 and leaving all
the contentious issues to be decided in arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration
agreement between the parties.

An important question pertinent in this regard is whether the doctrine of res judicata as
enshrined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the final award of the
arbitral tribunal, which is not under a strict compulsion to follow the strict procedure stipulated
in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. This article is an endeavour to analyse the
applicability of the rule of res judicata to the arbitration awards in India.

1
Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2
Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
 DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
The term res judicata refers to the general doctrine that an earlier and final adjudication by a
court or arbitration tribunal is conclusive in subsequent proceedings involving the same subject
matter or relief, the same legal grounds and the same parties.3

The res judicata doctrine has existed for many centuries and in different legal cultures. It was
amongst the principles of the Roman jurists, and it was also recognised in ancient Hindu texts.
It is said to be a clear example of a general principle of law recognised by civilised nations.

Res judicata is said to have: a positive effect (namely, that a judgment or award is final and
binding between the parties and should be implemented, subject to any available appeal or
challenge); and, a negative effect (namely, that the subject matter of the judgment or award
cannot be re-litigated a second time, also referred to as ne bis in idem).4 The positive effect is
largely uncontroversial. This paper is concerned primarily with the negative effect of res
judicata.

The doctrine finds its basis in two legal doctrines:

Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that there should be an end
of litigation")
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa ("no one should be proceeded against twice
for the same cause")

The former is a matter of public policy, and the latter is a matter of private justice.

The doctrine undoubtedly applies in all principal legal systems to prevent the same claimant
bringing the same claim against the exact same respondent. In mainly Common Law
jurisdictions, the doctrine also applies to prevent the same parties rearguing an issue that has
been determined in earlier proceedings between them.5 The doctrine has been further extended
in some Common Law jurisdictions to prevent a party raising issues in subsequent proceedings,
between the same parties, that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings but were not
raised.

3
International Law Association (ILA), Interim Report: Res Judicata and Arbitration (2004) at 2 available at
http://www.ilahq.org/download.cfm/docid/446043C4-9770-434D-AD7DD42F7E8E81C accessed 19.03.2017
(ILA interim report 2004).
4
Id.
5
Id.
In India, Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies the doctrine of res judicata, which
has a wide application and extends to the arbitration awards besides litigation, since the award
of the arbitral tribunal has same applicability as the decree of a Civil Court.6

SITUATIONS WHERE RES JUDICATA MIGHT ARISE

Issues of res judicata might arise in international commercial arbitration in a myriad of

different situations, including between:7

a partial award and a final award- within arbitral proceedings, an arbitral tribunal may
be faced with res judicata problems after rendering a partial award.
two arbitral tribunals- Res judicata is also encountered when a claimant brings claims
against the same respondent arising out of the same factual situation before different
arbitral tribunals, such as under some insurance policies where claims against the same
insurance company under different policies are brought before different arbitral
tribunals.
a state court and an arbitral tribunal- res judicata questions seem to appear much more
frequently between courts and tribunals than between different arbitral tribunals.
Instituting parallel proceedings before state courts may be inspired by various
legitimate reasons.
a supra-national court or tribunal and an arbitral tribunal- arbitral tribunals may have
to have regard to the effects of decisions of supra-national courts or tribunals.

6
Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7
ILA Interim Report 2004.
 RES JUDICATA IN COMMON AND CIVIL LAW
COUNTRIES

Even though the requisite components of res judicata, which postulates that a valid
determination is final and conclusive, appear to be uncontested within domestic legal systems,
there are marked discrepancies on the application of the doctrine between Common law and
Civil law systems.8

COMMON LAW

In common law countries, res judicata principles are generally found in and developed through
case law.9 The concept of res judicata is generally broader in common law jurisdictions than in
civil law jurisdictions. In a common law jurisdiction, the res judicata effect of an earlier
decision is raised by a party in subsequent proceedings by pleading either cause of action
estoppel or issue estoppel.

A "cause of action" comprises all the facts and circumstances necessary to give rise to a right
to relief. Generally, all claims arising from a single event and relying on the same evidence
will be treated as the same cause of action. Claim preclusion, termed as cause of action estoppel
in English law, prevents a party from re-litigating a claim or cause of action that was or could
have been asserted in the previous judgment.10 Cause of action estoppel prevents a party
asserting or denying the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence
of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation
between the same parties (or their privies).11 Common law jurisdictions often give res judicata
effect to the reasoning of previous decisions and not simply to the ultimate determination
itself.12

Issue estoppel prevents a party in subsequent proceedings from contradicting an issue of fact
or law that has already been distinctly raised and finally decided in earlier proceedings between
the same parties (or their privies). As in cause of action estoppel, elements of the reasoning and

8
Iain Scobbie, Res Judicata, Precedent and International Court: A preliminary Sketch (1999) 20 Aust. YBIL
299, 301
9
Peter Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel, and Foreign Judgments 9 (Oxford U. Press 2001)
10
B. Sena Gunes, Res Judicata in International Arbitration: To What Extent Does an Arbitral Award Prevent the
Re-Litigation of Issues?, (2015) 12(6) Transnational Dispute Management available at www.transnational-
dispute-management.com
11
Supra Note 9.
12
ILA Interim Report 2004 at 7.
not just the formal order may give rise to res judicata.13 Matters of fact or law, which are
subsidiary or collateral, are not covered by issue estoppel. A distinction is drawn between the
ratio decidendi and what is merely obiter dictum. It has traditionally been accepted that
procedural decisions cannot give rise to a plea of issue estoppel.14

With regard to application of the doctrine to arbitration, it has been held since at least 1783 that
an arbitral award can justify a plea of cause of action and issue estoppel. 15 More recently
(1966), Diplock LJ said:16 Issue estoppel applies to arbitration as it does to litigation. The
parties, having chosen the tribunal to determine the disputes between them as to their legal
rights and duties, are bound by the determination of that tribunal on any issue which is relevant
to the decision of any dispute referred to that tribunal.

Therefore, in case of an arbitral award, it must be a final award on the merits pronounced by a
tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

CIVIL LAW

Res judicata, as applied in domestic legal proceedings, can be found in the civil codes in many
civil law countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. The scope of the doctrine
of Res judicata is generally narrower in civil law countries than in common law countries. For
instance, its application is limited to re-litigating claims rather than extended to granting
preclusive effect to issues.17

In many countries, the principle of res judicata, as it applies in domestic legal proceedings, is
codified.18 Judgments are binding upon the parties when rendered (subject to any appeal) and
constitute a bar to re-litigating the same dispute. Thus, Civil Law jurisdictions in this respect
have a broader notion of res judicata, which expresses both the binding nature of a judgment
or award on the parties (positive res judicata) and the of the prohibition upon re-litigating
claims which have been decided (negative res judicata).19

13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Doe d Davy v Haddon (1783) 3 Doug KB 310
16
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1965] 1 Lloyd's Rep 13 (CA)
17
Gretta L. Walters, Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole: Do Res Judicata Challenges in International
Arbitration Constitute Jurisdictional and Admissibility Problems (2012) 29 J. Int. Arb. 651, 653.
18
ILA Interim Report 2004.
19
Supra Note 10.
On the other hand, the Civil Law doctrine, by and large, is more restricted than the Common
Law perspective on res judicata. There is no notion of issue estoppel or preclusion (as in the
Common Law). This is because, generally, a more formalistic approach is taken and it is only
the operative order of the court that has res judicata effect, and therefore the doctrine applies
only to claims.20

In determining whether res judicata applies, civil law countries strictly apply a triple identity
test.21 The triple identity test requires identity of the following: (1) the object (or relief sought),
(2) the grounds on which the claim is based, and (3) the parties.22 If these three elements in the
previous proceeding are identical to the current one, the doctrine of Res Judicata shall apply.

With respect to application of res judicata to arbitral awards, some civil law countries have
codified provisions. France (NCPC), Belgium (Belgian Judicial Code), Netherlands (Code of
Civil Procedure), Germany (CPC), Italy (CPC) are some of the countries that have codified
laws on applicability of res judicata on arbitral awards.23 All these civil law jurisdictions allow
the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata on arbitral awards.

20
ILA Interim Report 2004
21
Id.
22
Supra Note 17.
23
ILA Interim Report 2004.
 RES JUDICATA IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Res judicata is also extensively embraced as a principle of international law. International
courts, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and European Court of Justice (ECJ),
have repeatedly relied upon the principle, as do international arbitral tribunals.24

This widely accepted principle applies under international law when four requirements are
satisfied. Res Judicata shall apply on proceedings that: (1) involve the same relief, (2) involve
the same grounds, (3) are between the same parties, and (4) were previously conducted before
an international court or tribunal.25 The first three requirements are similar to the triple identity
test employed by civil law countries. The fourth requirement would essentially mean that
domestic court decisions have no legally binding effect on international dispute settlement
bodies. As a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations'26, there can be little
doubt that domestic and international courts within the same legal order will recognize and
enforce res judicata principles.

Here, it becomes essential to deal with the issue from an international arbitration point of view.
Therefore, current rules on res judicata of arbitration institutions, national arbitration laws and
international instruments must be analysed.

ARBITRATION INSTITUTIONS

Certain arbitral institutions' rules give binding effect to awards and impose a duty on parties to
carry out awards without delay. Article 34(6) of the ICC rules states that: Every award shall
be binding on the parties. The LCIA Rules Article 26.8, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
Article 34(2) and the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration Article 32(2) mention both the
final and binding effect of awards.

Such provisions confirm the positive res judicata effect of an award. In contrast, they are silent
on the issue of the preclusive effect of arbitral awards. Hence, they are not satisfactory to guide
tribunals over the issues of res judicata arising in practice.27

UNCITRAL MODEL LAW

24
Waste Management Inc v Mexico (Mexico's Preliminary Objection), ICSID, decision dated 26 June 2003,
(2002) 41 ILM 1315
25
Supra note 17
26
Interpretation of Judgments Nos 7 & 8 Concerning the Case of the Factory at Chorzow, 1927 PCIJ (Ser A) No
11, at 27 as cited in ILA Interim Report 2004.
27
Supra Note 10 at 7.
Article 35(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration states
that an arbitral award, irrespective of the country in which it was made, shall be recognised as
binding. Thus, the res judicata effect of arbitral awards is recognised. However, there is no
provision in the Model Law regarding the issue preclusive effects of arbitral awards.28

NATIONAL LAWS

Both Common law and Civil law jurisdictions generally accept the res judicata effect of arbitral
awards either through court practice or codifications. It has been observed that: "Nowhere in a
statute of a common law country is it stated than an arbitral award has res judicata effect like
a judgment".29 Nevertheless, the res judicata effect of an award is well established by case
law30 in Common Law jurisdictions. A significant number of states using the Continental law
system have enacted res judicata rules with respect to arbitral awards. The French NCPC
Article 1476 provides that: The arbitral award, from the moment that it has been given, shall
carry the authority of res judicata in relation to the dispute which it has determined.

Nevertheless, all these provisions are applicable for domestic arbitral awards and only consider
the positive effect of arbitral awards. Whereas foreign arbitral awards are also considered final
and binding in practice, the majority of jurisdictions (except France where Article 1500 of
NCPC incorporates this rule for international arbitral awards as well) do not have express
provisions for foreign awards in their arbitration laws.31

NEW YORK CONVENTION

Article III of the 1958 New York Convention states that: "Each Contracting State shall
recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure
of the territory where the award is relied upon under the conditions laid down in the following
articles." This provision recognises that an arbitral award has res judicata effect.

Therefore, it can very well be concluded that arbitral awards are generally said to have a res
judicata effect.

28
Id.
29
Peter Schlosser, "Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts: Who must defer to whom?", ASA Special Series No 15,
2001, at 21.
30
This is expressly stated in 1783 in the case of Doe d. Davy v Haddon 3 Doug KB 310. It is impossible to
suggest any good ground of distinction between [arbitral awards and court judgements
31
Supra Note 10
Regarding the issue of preclusive effects of arbitral awards, the International Law Association
in its Final Report with regard to Res Judicata and International Arbitration (2006) has used
the terminology conclusive and preclusive effects of arbitral awards instead of res judicata
but has implied to the same meaning. This terminology has been used to encompass both the
positive and negative effects of awards (positive and negative res judicata). Regarding the
former, res judicata may be invoked by a claimant in further proceedings to develop his case
(i.e., to rely on previous findings). As to the latter, res judicata works as a defence to stop re-
litigation of subject-matter, which has been disposed of in a previous decision. The terminology
of conclusive and preclusive effects of arbitral awards has the added advantage in that it covers
the full scope of application of the doctrine of res judicata and similar concepts.32

32
ILA, Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration (2006),
http://www.ilahq.org/download.cfm/docid/6B3CC412-3CCE-47FD-8E85F3E4F6252D08, accessed 19.03.2017
(ILA final report 2006)
 EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA ON ARBITRAL AWARDS IN
INDIA

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies the doctrine of res judicata, which has a
wide application and extends to the arbitration awards besides litigation, since the award of the
arbitral tribunal has same applicability as the decree of a Civil Court. Section 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure provides:

No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has
been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigation under the same title, in a Court
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently
raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Thus the doctrine of res judicata is a procedural provision. It is applicable when the same matter
is raised in the court by the same parties when the matter has been decided finally by a Court
competent to decide that matter, and this is done to preserve the effect of the judgment given
by the Court. Res judicata, however, does not bar making of an appeal, since it is a mere
extension of the law suit to the higher Court having appellate jurisdiction.33

With respect to application of the doctrine in arbitration cases, there was no specific provision
in Arbitration Act, 1940. Nevertheless, the courts have applied res judicata, or for that matter,
constructive res judicata to arbitral awards.34 In the present context, Section 35 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that, An arbitral award shall be final and
binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively. This means that all the
procedural laws including the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of CPC shall be
applicable to arbitral proceedings and arbitral awards.35 But this is in respect to domestic
arbitral awards only.

With regard to international arbitral awards, the decision of Delhi High Court in Anita Garg v.
M/s Glencore Grain Rotterdam36 is of relevance. Glencore had obtained an interim award

33
Vinod Danani, Management of Dispute Resolution System in India, (2014) 4(12) International Journal of
Applied Research 292,293 available at https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-
(IJAR)/file.php?val=December_2014_1418988329__93.pdf>
34
KV George v. Secy to Government, Water and Power Department, Trivandrum (1989) 4 SCC 595
35
O.P. Malhotra, The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation (LexisNexis 2006).
36
2011 SCC Online Del 1235
upholding jurisdiction and a final award against M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain, a registered
partnership firm, from the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) in 1997. This
arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration and the seat of arbitration was
outside India. The firm filed a suit (hereinafter firm suit) before the Delhi High Court in 1997
to challenge the legality and validity of the 11 underlying contracts, in relation to which
arbitration proceedings were initiated. The issue of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal was
raised by the firm, before the tribunal, and the same was rejected by it by its interim award.
Glencore also filed a civil suit (hereinafter Glencore suit) in the Delhi High Court, to enforce
the foreign award. The partners then filed a petition under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, relying
on Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd & Anr.37, which was decided
on 10 January, 2008, and the question that arose was whether the challenge to the legality of
the underlying contracts was barred by res judicata.

Although not expressly considered in the judgment, S. 11 of the CPC, which applies to a suit,
may nevertheless be a bar to an arbitration petition under Section 34.38 In Smita Conductors
v Euro Alloy39, the Supreme Court held, in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that a
decision as to the existence or validity of the contract by a court in an arbitration petition is
binding on the parties because the court has jurisdiction under the Act to adjudicate such
questions. In any event, it is a settled law that s. 11 is a manifestation of a principle of public
policy and that res judicata may therefore be invoked even when s. 11 is not in terms
applicable.

In this case, it was held by the single judge that the previously decided cases shall operate as
res judicata against the plaintiff in the present case and therefore, the petition was held to be
not maintainable. It was observed by the single-judge bench that,

The matter directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit, i.e. the Glencore suit, was
the issue of enforceability of the foreign award. By now preferring their (the plaintiffs)
objections under Section 34, it is the same matter which is again sought to be put in issue. The
earlier suit was a suit between respondent no.1 (Glencore) on the one hand, and the firm on
the other hand. The partnership firm is merely a compendium of its partners. Therefore, the

37
(2008) 4 SCC 190
38
Res Judicata, Venture Global and Section 48 of Arbitration Act available at
http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.in/2011/03/res-judicata-venture-global-and-s-48-of.html
39
(2001) 7 SCC 721.
earlier suit was, in effect, a suit between the same parties as in the present petition. The mere
impleadment of respondent no.2, i.e. GAFTA in these proceedings makes no difference.40

It was then argued by the plaintiff that the firm suit was not dismissed on merits. To this,
Sanghi, J., observed that, I find no force in this submission as well. The said suit was dismissed
as a consequence of the Court decreeing the suit filed by Respondent No. 1(Glencore suit) and
holding the foreign awards to be enforceable. The foreign awards upheld the contracts in
question - the legality and validity whereof was challenged by the firm.41

The plaintiffs also argued that while filing objections in the Glencore suit, S. 34 had not been
invoked and only S. 48 was invoked. To this, it was observed that, The fact that while filing
the objections, Section 34 had not been invoked, and only Section 48 had been invoked by the
partnership firm also does not make any difference to the maintainability of this petition. This
is because, "Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack
in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in
such suit" (Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC)No objections were preferred under Section
34 of the Act at any stage by the partnership firm, which could have been and ought to have
been so preferred. In my view, the decisions rendered in CS(OS) 1103/1997 (firm suit) and
CS(OS) 541/1998 (Glencore suit) operate as res judicata against the petitioner in these
proceedings, and consequently, these proceedings are not maintainable.42

After this petition filed by the said partnership firm was dismissed, the plaintiffs preferred an
appeal to the division bench of the Delhi High Court43. But the appeal was again dismissed and
the decision of the single judge bench was upheld.

40
Anita Garg v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam, 2011 SCC Online Del 1235 21
41
Id at 24
42
Id at 25
43
Anita Garg v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam, 2011 SCC Online Del 3391
 CONCLUSION
Issue of res judicata in international arbitration is an issue encountered by arbitration tribunals
quite frequently and is believed to continue due to the complex contractual arrangements and
legal rights.44 One possible solution to address the issues of res judicata is to take guidance
from domestic law. However, this seems to be problematic by virtue of the fact that national
laws may be of little help to furnish an ideal solution mainly due to differences in provisions
related to res judicata in common law and civil law legal systems.

The second potential solution to address the issues of res judicata in the international
arbitration context is to seek guidance from international instruments and national arbitration
laws. But even these international instruments do not contain any rule beyond the final and
binding nature of arbitral awards. Therefore, a comprehensive approach is required which
considers the specificities of international arbitration.

With reference to India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 expressly allows application
of res judicata to domestic awards. Nevertheless, with respect to foreign arbitral awards, the
position is not very clear and future judicial pronouncements can be considered as the only
hope.

44
ILA Interim Report 2004
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

BOOKS

Peter Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel, and Foreign Judgments, Oxford U. Press 2001
O.P. Malhotra, The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation, LexisNexis, 2nd
ed, 2006.

ARTICLES

Iain Scobbie, Res Judicata, Precedent and International Court: A preliminary Sketch
(1999) 20 Aust. YBIL 299.
Gretta L. Walters, Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole: Do Res Judicata Challenges
in International Arbitration Constitute Jurisdictional and Admissibility Problems
(2012) 29 J. Int. Arb. 651.
Peter Schlosser, "Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts: Who must defer to whom?", ASA
Special Series No 15, 2001.

WEB RESOURCES

International Law Association (ILA), Interim Report: Res Judicata and Arbitration
(2004) at 2 available at http://www.ilahq.org/download.cfm/docid/446043C4-9770-
434D-AD7DD42F7E8E81C
B. Sena Gunes, Res Judicata in International Arbitration: To What Extent Does an
Arbitral Award Prevent the Re-Litigation of Issues? available at www.transnational-
dispute-management.com
ILA, Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration (2006),
http://www.ilahq.org/download.cfm/docid/6B3CC412-3CCE-47FD-
8E85F3E4F6252D08
Vinod Danani, Management of Dispute Resolution System in India, (2014) 4(12)
International Journal of Applied Research 292,293 available at
https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-
(IJAR)/file.php?val=December_2014_1418988329__93.pdf>