Arbitration Law
Marzie Dabiri; Feyzollah Jafari
Abstract
In law of iran, it is impermissible to refer a bankruptcy litigation to arbitration.(article 496 of civil procedure code) in some countries this prohibition has been created by recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of special bankruptcy courts. But, there isn’t be an specific legal provisions ...
Read More
In law of iran, it is impermissible to refer a bankruptcy litigation to arbitration.(article 496 of civil procedure code) in some countries this prohibition has been created by recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of special bankruptcy courts. But, there isn’t be an specific legal provisions regarding the arbitrability of bankruptcy related lawsuits that may be litigated during liquidation. In order to answer the question of whether such claims are arbitrable or not, the origin and reason of the non-arbitrability of the bankruptcy claim must be known. In this case, various reason such as conflict with public order or protection of creditors’ rights have been mentioned it seems that the main root of this prohibition is in the inherent limitation of arbitration. Arbitration doesn’t have possibility to solve bankruptcy cases effectively. This article by descriptive analytical method concludes that should be distinguished. So if the claims of during liquidation period were derived from the binding rights and duties in the bankruptcy laws and to enforce the bankruptcy order and correct explanation of creditors’ rights to comply of bankruptcy claim, it can’t be referred to arbitration. But other lawsuits, which orginate from other laws other than bankruptcy are arbitrable.Arbitrability, Bankruptcy Liquidation, Law Suit, Eligibility, Dispute Resolution
judgmental procedure
Amirhossein Alizadeh; Jamshid Zargari
Abstract
There is no clear solution, in civil justice system and judicial procedure of Iran, how to resolve the dispute among courts regarding to the recognition of full connection among related actions. The question is that which judicial authority should recognize the full connection? And in the event of a ...
Read More
There is no clear solution, in civil justice system and judicial procedure of Iran, how to resolve the dispute among courts regarding to the recognition of full connection among related actions. The question is that which judicial authority should recognize the full connection? And in the event of a dispute on the recognition of the full connection between the two courts, whether in same jurisdiction or in two different jurisdictions or different degrees, how to resolve it? In the current legal order, is there a judicial authority to resolve the dispute? The necessity of answering this question is important because lack of clear and precise rules in this matter causes delays in judicial proceedings, conflicting verdicts, inadequate judgments, and a loss of public confidence in the judiciary. In this article, in a descriptive-analytical manner and with library resources, in addition to analyzing ambiguous cases, suggestions and solutions to silent cases under internal regulations, judicial procedure and comparative law are presented. The result shows that according to the current legal order, despite recognizing the full connection by one branch of the court and sending case to another branch of that court, this branch of the court has obligation to hear related actions for preventing the cessation of the judicial proceedings. However, it is contrary to the principle of judicial independence and imposing the substantive opinion of one branch of the court on another branch of that court. Therefore, it is suggested that in future amendments to Civil Procedure Law, disputes among courts in recognizing full connection in two courts with same jurisdiction, the head of the jurisdiction is in charge and if two courts are in two different jurisdictions or being between supreme court and civil court, the dispute resolution shall be conducted under rules settlement of jurisdictional disputes.