The Supreme Court in Guru Foundation Rattan and sons, 1981 (4) SCC 634, observed as,
“Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive court procedures implied jurists to search for an alternative forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act for short).
However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without an exception challenged in Courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep.
Experience shows and law reporters bear ample testimony that the proceedings under the Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary.
Informal forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Courts been clothed with “legalese” of unforeseeable complexity. This case amply demonstrates the same.”