Arbitration promised speed and often fails to deliver it. Section 29B of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — inserted by the 2015 amendments alongside the Section 29A clock — is the statute's direct answer: a fast track procedure the parties may choose, before or at the time the tribunal is constituted, under which a sole arbitrator decides the dispute on written pleadings, documents and submissions, without oral hearings unless the parties request or the arbitrator finds one necessary, and makes the award within six months. For document-driven commercial disputes, it is one of the most underused tools in Indian arbitration practice. This explainer sets out its mechanics and its judgment calls.
The statutory design
Section 29B is built on four elements. Consent: the fast track exists only by the parties\' written agreement, made before or at the tribunal\'s constitution. Composition: the tribunal consists of a sole arbitrator, chosen by the parties. Procedure: written pleadings and documents are the default universe; oral hearings are the exception, held on joint request or tribunal necessity, and technical formalities are dispensed with to the extent consistent with fairness. Timeline: the award is due within six months of the tribunal entering upon the reference, with Section 29A\'s extension and consequences regime applying to overruns. Fees are as agreed between the parties and the arbitrator, freeing the fast track from schedule disputes.
1. Opt in
Fast track clause in the contract, or written agreement when the dispute arises — at or before appointment.
2. Sole arbitrator appointed
By consent, or through the Section 11 court/institutional route where the mechanism fails.
3. Papers exchanged
Statement of claim, defence and counterclaim with all documents; the tribunal may seek clarifications.
4. Award in six months
Documents-only decision, or a compressed hearing if requested or necessary; S.29A governs any extension.
Which disputes belong on the fast track
The procedure suits disputes whose evidence is already on paper: invoice and recovery claims under supply contracts, loan and guarantee enforcement, licence fee and rent recovery under commercial instruments, final-bill disputes where the contemporaneous record is complete, and quantum-only disagreements after liability has narrowed. It suits badly: cases turning on oral testimony and credibility, fraud allegations requiring cross-examination, multi-party and multi-contract construction disputes, and matters needing extensive expert evidence. The opt-in moment is therefore a genuine forensic decision — a claimant with a documents case gains months and cost; a party whose defence depends on cross-examination should refuse the fast track or negotiate a hybrid with a defined hearing.
Drafting note for contracts: a standing fast track clause binds both sides before anyone knows which side of a dispute they will occupy. The balanced course many Delhi drafters take is a threshold clause — fast track for disputes below a stated value, full procedure above — or an option exercisable by agreement when the dispute crystallises, preserving Section 29B\'s benefits without locking the parties into an unsuitable procedure.
Conducting the fast track well
Compressed procedure raises the premium on first filings. Pleadings must be complete on arrival — every document annexed, every calculation shown, witness statements (if any) attached — because the procedure offers no leisurely second round. Tribunals, for their part, protect the award by procedural orders that record the parties\' agreement to the fast track, fix the exchange calendar, decide early whether any hearing is needed, and give each side a defined opportunity to respond to the other\'s material. The natural justice floor does not lower because the ceiling of time does; it is simply administered more tightly.
The fast track and the Delhi ecosystem
With the Delhi International Arbitration Centre\'s administrative machinery, court-appointed sole arbitrators, and a commercial bar accustomed to written advocacy, Delhi is well suited to Section 29B arbitration — yet clauses invoking it remain rare, largely from habit. For MSMEs and mid-size businesses weighing the cost of full-dress arbitration against a modest claim, the fast track is frequently the difference between enforcing a right and writing it off: six months to an enforceable award, on the papers the parties already possess, followed by the ordinary enforcement route under Section 36. It deserves a place in the standard drafting conversation, not the footnotes.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha advises on arbitration clauses, proceedings and enforcement before tribunals, the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do parties opt into fast track arbitration?
By written agreement — either a clause in the contract providing that disputes will be resolved under Section 29B, or an agreement at any time before or at the time of appointment of the tribunal. The parties may also agree that the arbitrator will be chosen for the fast track from persons they specify. Institutions administering arbitrations in Delhi offer expedited-procedure rules built on the same framework.
What does the procedure actually look like?
The tribunal decides on the basis of written pleadings, documents and submissions, and may call for further information or clarification. Oral hearing is held only if all parties request it or the tribunal considers it necessary for clarifying issues; where held, it is compressed. Technical formalities are cut, and the award must be made within six months of the tribunal entering upon the reference.
What happens if the six months expire?
The extension machinery of Section 29A applies: the parties may consent to a further period, and beyond that the court's power to extend — with the accompanying discipline over arbitrator fees and substitution — takes over. In practice, a genuinely documents-only case that cannot conclude in six months usually signals it was mis-selected for the fast track.
Is a fast track award easier to challenge?
No. The award has the same force, and the Section 34 grounds are identical. The one caution is natural justice: a tribunal that refuses a genuinely necessary oral hearing, or decides on material a party had no chance to answer, invites a challenge — which is why well-run fast track arbitrations document the parties' procedural agreements and every opportunity given.