Pertinently, the Court observed that arbitration was recognized as a dispute resolution mechanism which could be adopted once a dispute had arisen between parties, and therefore, the trigger of an arbitral process demonstrated the existence of a dispute or a ‘difference’ within the meaning of Section 44 of the Act and Article I of the New York Convention.
In this context, the Court observed that none of the provisions under the New York Convention prohibited arbitral proceedings from being closed once parties arrived at a settlement. In fact, these settlements assisted the tribunal to close the disputes that once arose between the parties and the adoption of such terms of a settlement agreement in the arbitral award ensured that it would bind parties and would be enforceable in law against such parties.
Source: Barandbench
