Notice invoking arbitration. The process starts with a written notice to the other party invoking the arbitration clause and identifying the dispute. This starts the clock on any limitation period and is the trigger for appointing a tribunal.
Constitution of the tribunal. Where an institution administers the arbitration, this is usually the fastest part of the process — the institution appoints from an empanelled list, or confirms the parties' nominees, typically within a few weeks. Ad hoc arbitrations without an institution can take considerably longer, especially if one party is uncooperative and a court application becomes necessary.
First procedural hearing. The tribunal and parties agree the procedural timetable — pleadings, document disclosure, witness statements, and hearing dates. This is also where a technology protocol gets agreed if any part of the hearing will be virtual or hybrid.
Pleadings and document production. A statement of claim, statement of defence, and any counterclaim are exchanged, followed by a document production phase where each side can request specific categories of documents from the other.
Evidentiary hearing. Witnesses are examined, and in more technical disputes, expert evidence is taken. This is usually the longest single phase, and the one most affected by adjournment requests.
Final submissions. Written or oral closing arguments, sometimes both, addressing the tribunal's questions from the hearing.
The award. Under Section 29A, a tribunal has twelve months from the completion of pleadings to deliver the award, extendable by six months with the parties' consent, and further by a court thereafter. A reasoned award sets out the tribunal's findings on each issue and the relief granted.
Post-award. The award becomes enforceable as a decree once the three-month window for a Section 34 challenge has passed, or once a challenge has been dismissed. If the losing party doesn't comply voluntarily, the award is executed like any other court decree.
None of these stages are unique to arbitration — courts follow a version of the same sequence. What differs is that an institutional timetable puts a date against each one, and an administering registry chases compliance with that timetable instead of leaving it to the parties.