Interdisciplinary Project - Falguni Parkar
Interdisciplinary Project - Falguni Parkar
Interdisciplinary Project - Falguni Parkar
1
P a g e i| i2
2
P a g e i| i3
Flexibility igives ithe ilaw isome ilatitude iso ithat iit imay ibe imodified ito
ifit ichanging isocietal inorms. iIf ithe ilaw iis ihard iand iunchangeable, iit
icould inot ireact ito ichanges iimmediately, iwhich imight icause iresentment
iand idiscontent iamong ithe ipeople iand ipossibly ilead ito iviolence ior ia
irevolution. iConsequently, isome iflexibility iin ithe ilegislation iis
iunavoidable.
Even inow, ithere iare istill idisenfranchised igroups, itowns, iand itribes ithat
iresolve itheir iconflicts ioutside iof ithe ilegal isystem. iTheir isocioeconomic
istanding, icultural ibackground, iand iother ifactors iare isome iof ithe icauses
iof ithis. iThe isame iis itrue iaround ithe iworld, iincluding iin iwealthy
inations ilike ithe iUnited iStates, iFrance, ithe iUnited iKingdom, iand
iCanada. iThis iis inot ijust ithe icase iin iIndia. iThe icourt isystem iis
iunfamiliar ito isome iof ithese iindividuals ias iwell. iIt ishould inot ibe
iassumed ithat ibecause ithese iindividuals idid inot ihave iconflicts, ithey idid
inot igo ito icourt iwhen iassessing ithe ireasons. iTo iconclude iin ithis iway
iwould ibe ito ideprive ithem iof ijustice. iWe ialso icannot iclaim ithat itheir
idisagreements iare iintractable. iIt iwould ialso ibe iincorrect ito iassume ithat
ithey ican isettle itheir idisagreement. iA icommittee imade iup iof ithese
iindividuals iand igroups ihas ibeen iestablished ito ihear iarguments iand
iprovide idecisions. iBecause iof ithese ifactors, itheir iapproach iof isettling
ithe iconflict imay ibe iconsidered ian iextra istrategy irather ithan ia
i"alternative."4 i
MEANING i
The iterm ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) irefers ito iseveral imethods
iof iresolving iconflicts ioutside iof icourt. iArbitration, ineutral iassessment,
iand imediation iare iexamples iof icommon iADR iprocedures. iTypically,
ithese iprocedures iare imore iprivate, iinformal, iand irelaxing ithan itypical
icourt isessions.
3
P a g e i| i4
iplace iin ithe ilegal isystem iand iits iability ito ifunction ias ia iliving
isocial inorm. iIn ithis iperspective, iPospisil i(1971) iemphasized ithat ilaw
iis itruly ia icomponent iof iculture iand ithat iit iought ito ibe iexamined ias
isuch irather ithan ias ia iseparate iinstitution. iAs ia iresult, iwhen
idiscussing istate ilaw, iother icultural ifactors iincluding ithe ieconomics,
ipolitics, iand iideologies iwere itaken iinto iaccount. iIn iactuality, ithese
icultural icharacteristics ihave ia isignificant iimpact ion ihow istate ilaw iis
iapplied. iBecause iof ithis, ia ivariety iof ibarriers ito ithe iexecution iof
istate ilaw ihave ibeen inoted, inotably iin ithe iState icourt i(Regular
iDispute iResolution i(RDR)), iwhich iare icaused iby iideological,
ifinancial, iand icultural ifactors.
ADR ithat iis ifocused ion ilegal ipluralism iwill ibe ieffective iin ibringing
ijustice ito ithe ilitigants' idoorsteps iwho iare ifrustrated iwith iRDR ithat
iis ifocused ion ilegal icentralism.
Democratic inations i(including iIndia, ithe iUnited iStates, iand ithe
iUnited iKingdom) ihave ifound ithat ithe itraditional ijudicial isystem iis
icostly iand itime-consuming. iOn ithe iother ihand, icontemporary
ialternative iconflict iresolution imethods ilike iLok-Adalat, iMediation,
iArbitration, iand iConciliation iare iquicker, iless iexpensive, iand icome
iwith ia ihost iof iother iadvantages. iFor iexample, ian iaward irendered
ithrough ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iachieves ifinality, iADR
iincurs ifewer icosts ithan ilitigation, imaintains iconfidentiality, iallows
iparties ito ichoose iany iindividual ior ipersons i(if iagreed ito iserve ias
iarbitrators) ito iresolve itheir idispute, iencourages iparties ito isettle itheir
idifferences iamicably ioutside iof icourt, iand iresults iin ithe imutually
iagreed iupon iresolution iof ilegal idisputes ithrough imediation.For ithese
ireasons, ithe iUSA, iIreland, iIndia, iand iother inations ithat iwere ior iare
ihaving idifficulty iresolving ia isignificant ibacklog iof icases ihave
iembraced ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) ias ia imeans iof
iaddressing ithe iissue. iHowever, ithe istudy ireveals ithat ithis iADR
imechanism iis istill inot iwidely iused iin iIndia.
The ineed ifor iADR i:-
- High iCourts iare iovercrowded
- No iadmission.
4
P a g e i| i5
- Disposal irates
- Weight iof iPendency
- State ivs. iCitizen iConflict
- Other iReasons
- Adjournments
- Work iConcentration
In iorder ito ievaluate itheir iusefulness, iI ihave ialso ireferred ito ithe
icustoms ithat iwere icommon iin iancient iIndia iand iother inations, ias
iwell ias ia inumber iof ilaws, irules, iand iregulations ithat isupport iand
ienhance ithe iconstitutional ipurpose. iA inumber iof irecommendations
iderived ifrom ithe iliterature istudy ihave ialso ibeen imade. iIn iorder ito
iaccomplish ithe iconstitutional iaim iof iequitable iand iprompt ijustice,
ishortcomings, ilacunae, ietc., iin ithe icurrent ilegislation ihave ialso ibeen
ibrought ito ilight, iand ia imeek iattempt iis imade ito iconsider ithe
i"LEGAL iAID iJURISPRUDENCE."
5
P a g e i| i6
6
P a g e i| i7
ithat iit iis ia iunique iphenomena ifor iwhich ia inumber iof ilaws iand
iregulations ihave ibeen iput iinto iplace iin iorder ito iaccomplish iits
iadmirable igoal. iIn ithis istudy, ia ireview iof iseveral ilaws, ipolicies,
idecrees, iand iprograms ihas ibeen iconducted.
ADR imechanisms isuch ias imediation, iconciliation, ior iarbitration iare
inow imandated iby isome iIndian ilaws ifor iparties iinvolved iin ilitigation
i(e.g., ipartition isuits, ichild icustody, idivorce imatters, icommercial
idisputes, iNegotiable iInstruments iAct iCases, ietc.) ibefore inew icases iare
ifiled ior iexisting icases iare itried. iThe iCommercial iCourts iAct's
irequirements iare ione itype iof ipre-litigation imediation.6 i. iThe iwell-
written iprovisions iof ithe iCommercial iCourts iAct istipulate ithat iparties
iseeking iimmediate irelief imust iattempt ito iresolve itheir idispute ithrough
i"Mediation" ifirst. iIf ia isettlement icannot ibe ireached, ithey imay ithen
iapproach ithe icourts ito icontinue itheir icase iunder ithe iCommercial
iCourts iAct.
Nonetheless, ithere iare iexamples ithat idemonstrate ihow icertain ilitigants
ihave iattempted ito itake iadvantage iof iADR iforums isuch ias iLok iAdalat
iin iorder ito istall icourt iprocedures. iConsequently, ithe iKarnataka iHigh
iCourt ihas iruled ithat icases ithat ithe icourt idetermines ia iparty iseeking ito
irefer ito iLok iAdalat iseeks ito ipostpone ishall inot ibe isent ito iLok
iAdalat.7
7
P a g e i| i8
3. To iresearch ithe inature iand iuse iof ifree ilegal iaid, iwhich iis ia
iconcurrent iright ito ilife iand ipersonal iliberty iunder iArticle i21 iof
ithe iIndian iConstitution's iFundamental iRights.
4. To iresearch ithe ibreadth iof ihuman irights iand ihow ijudicial idelays
ihinder ithe iimplementation iof ihuman irights.
5. To iresearch ithe irange iof imore iaffordable iand iquick iforms iof
idispute iresolution.
6. To iresearch ithe imechanisms ithat imake iLok iAdalats, iArbitration,
iMediation, iand iConciliation imore ieffective iin iproviding iaccess
ito ijustice ithrough iregular idispute iresolution iand ialternative
idispute iapproaches.
7. To iunderstand iwhether iADR iis ia ispecial iadvantageous itool. i
8. To iknow ivarious iprecautions irequired ito ibe itaken iby ithe icourt
iresorting ito iADR itools.
9. To iknow, iis ithere iany ineed ito idrop ithe iADR iand igo iback ito
itraditional imode iof isettlement ilike iPanchayat iand iGram-
Nyayalaya, ior iwhether iboth ithe ipatterns imay irun itogether.
8
P a g e i| i9
HYPOTHESIS
1. Whether iadaptation iof iADR iwill ireduce iworkload iof icourts
2. Whether iADR iis ihelpful iin iensuring ispeedy ijustice
3. Pending iLitigation, ijudicial idelays iand icostly ilitigations imake
iRDR ian iimpediment iwith iineffective imechanism ito iaccess ito
ijustice.
4. ADR iis ithe ibest isolution ifor ithe iproblems ifaced iby iRDR iin
iadministration iof ijustice.
5. Whether iADR itool iin ispeeding iup idisposal, iadversely
icompromising iwith ijustice idelivery
6. ADR imechanisms iare inot ieffectively iand iproperly iused ito isecure
iaccess ito ijustice ieven ithough iADRs iin idispensation iof ijustice iis
icheaper, isimple iand ipart iof ispeedy ijustice. i
9
P a g e i| i10
7. ADR iand iRDR iare ito ibe iencouraged iand iutilized ieffectively ifor
ispeedy ijustice ias iADR iand iRDR iare isupplementary iand
icomplimentary ito ieach iother.
8. Above iquestions iseem ito ihave icreated idilemma iin ithe imind iof
ilitigants, i“whether ito iget imatter ireferred ito iADR ior inot”.
RESEARCH iMETHODOLOGY
The iproposed iresearch iwork iis ia idoctrinal iresearch. iIt iincludes ian
ianalysis iof ipertinent ilaws, irules, iregulations, ipolicies, iguidelines,
ienactments, iand iother irelated imaterials. iThe idimensions iof ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR) iapproaches iare inot iwell isupported iby
iempirical idata, iindicating ithat iADR iis ione iof ithe iunique iways ifor
ireducing ithe ibacklog iof iongoing icases.
The iinformation iis igathered ifrom isecondary isources, iincluding
igovernment idocuments, ibooks, ie-books, icase ilaws, ilegal ijournals,
ireports, iarticles, iand iwebliographies, iamong iothers. iThe ipresent istudy
ihas ialso imade iuse iof ia irange iof ilibraries iand ionline iresources
iaccessible ithrough ithe ifollowing iinstitutions: ithe iSupreme iCourt,
iBombay iHigh iCourt, iDistrict iCourts iof iWardha iNanded iand
iGadchiroli, iNational iJudicial iAcademy iBhopal, iMaharashtra iJudicial
iAcademy iUttan iThane, iSardar iVallabhbhai iPatel iNational iPolice
iAcademy iHyderabad i(also iknown ias ithe iIPS iTraining iAcademy),
iS.T.M iNagpur iUniversity, iSRTM iNanded iUniversity, iNarayanrao
iChavan iCollege iof iLaw, iand iSeedling iSchool iof iLaw i& iGovernance,
iJaipur iNational iUniversity, iJaipur.
Most iof ithe icurrent iresearch iinquiry iis ianalytical iand icomparative. iTo
ianalyze idiffering iideas iregarding iADR ias imeans ifor iaccess ito ijustice,
ia idoctrinal iapproach iis iappropriate. iHowever, ithe ichange iplaces igreater
iemphasis ion ithe ialready iconducted iLegal iAnthropology iresearch, ias
iproposed iby ithe iForeign iExaminer. iIn ithe imodification, ia isociolegal
iresearch ithat iwas ionly ipartially iaccepted iand iincluded icertain icase
istudies iwas ikept. iThe ilegal ipluralism itheory, ias iproposed iby ithe
iForeign iExaminer iin ithis iversion, iis iembraced iand iused ito icomprehend
10
P a g e i| i11
11
P a g e i| i12
Chapter i5:- i i iLaws, iRules, iRegulations i& iSchemes iof iADR iin
iIndia
The iFifth ichapter idiscuss iabout ithe iLaws i, iRegulations, iRules iin
irelation ito ithe iADR iin iIndia i
12
P a g e i| i13
The ilimitations iof iRegular iDispute iResolution iand ithe inecessity iand ivalue
iof iAlternative iDispute iResolution i(ADR) iwere icovered iin ithe iintroductory
ichapter ialong iwith ithe iimportance, igoals, iand iplan iof ithe istudy.The icurrent
iresearch iinvestigation istarted iwith ithe iformulation iof ihypotheses. iThis
ichapter iwill icover ithe inature, ipurpose, iand iend iof ilaw ias iwell ias iADR ias
ia isupplement ito iconventional icourt-based ijustice iadministration, iprompt
ijustice, ifree ilegal iassistance, iand iaccess ito ijustice ias iguaranteed iby ithe
iIndian iConstitution.
A istate's itwo iprimary iresponsibilities iare i(1) iwaging iwar iand i(2)
iadministering ijustice. iA istate iisn't ifit ito ibe itermed ia i"state" iif iit ican't
icarry iout ithese iduties. iUsing istate iforce ito imaintain ipeace iand iorder
iwithin ia ipolitical isociety iis iimplied iby ithe iadministration iof ijustice. iIt
iserves ias ia icontemporary iand irefined ireplacement ifor ithe iarchaic
imethods iof iviolent iself-help iand iprivate iretaliation. iThe ifirst
iprerequisite ifor ian ieffective iadministration iof ijustice iis ithe iuse iof istate
iphysical iforce. iNonetheless, ithere iare iother ivariables ithat ifacilitate ithe
iexecution iof ijustice iand ienforce iadherence ito ithe ilaw. iThese iconsist
iof ithings ilike ipublic iopinion, icustom, iconvenience, iand isocial isanction.
13
P a g e i| i14
- For ias ilong ias ihuman icivilization ihas ibeen, ithere ihas ibeen ia inotion
iof ijustice. iMan imust ilive iin ipeace iwithin isociety ibecause iof ihis
isocial inature. iLiving ithis iway ipresents ia iconflict iof iinterest ifor
ihim, iand ihe iexpects iothers ito ibehave iwith iintegrity. iThat's ithe
irationale ibehind ithe ifocus ion ijustice iin ithe idefinitions iof ilaw imade
iby iRoscoe iPound iand iSalmond. iRightly iso, iSalmond inoted, i"the
iState iadministers ijustice ithrough ithe iinstrumentality iof ilaw." iThe
iState irecognizes iand iupholds ia iset iof iprinciples iknown ias ilaw,
iaccording ito iRoscoe iPound, iin iorder ito iadminister ijustice. iFrom
iBlackstone's iperspective, ijustice iserves ias ia isource ifrom iwhich ithe
iideas iof iobligation, iequity, iand iright iflow.
- With ithe iexpansion iof ithe iState, iwhich iuses ithe ipower iof ithe ilaw
ito iprovide ijustice ito iits icitizens, ithe iidea iof ijustice ibecame
iincreasingly iapparent. iThe iidea iof ijustice ispread ithroughout iother
iareas iof ihuman iendeavors ias ithe ilaw ievolved iand imatured. iFor
iinstance, iwe ihave icriminal ijustice, icivil ijustice, ieconomic ijustice,
isocial ijustice, iand iso iforth inowadays.
- Ensuring ithat ithe ilaw iis iuniform iand iclear iwhile ialso imaking isure
ithat iindividuals irespect itheir irights iand iobligations iis ifundamental
ito ithe iconcept iof ilegal ijustice. iPut ianother iway, ipeople iare
irequired ito iact iin ia iway ithat iupholds ithe ilegal iobligations iplaced
iupon ithem iwhile ialso imaking isure ithat ithey irespect ithe irights iof
itheir ifellow icitizens. i
- The iconcept iof iimpartiality ithat iis iingrained iin ithe iidea iof ijustice
iis istill ianother icrucial icomponent. iIt iis inecessary ito ibe ijust iand
iequitable itoward iall imembers iof isociety, inot ijust ioneself. iThe ilaw's
ienforcement iof ijustice iwhen iit iis iviolated ileads ito iState ipenalty, ior
iwhat iwe iusually irefer ito ias ipunishment. iThis iis irather iessential ifor
ithe iefficient iadministration iof ijustice.
14
P a g e i| i15
15
P a g e i| i16
- One iof ithe ikey iresponsibilities iof ithe istate inowadays iis ithe
iadministration iof ijustice ithrough icourts iof ilaw. iLegislation idrafted iby
ithe ilegislature iguides ithe icourts' iadministration iof ijustice. iThe
iconsistency, icertainty, iimpartiality, iand iequity iin ithe iadministration iof
ijustice iare iits imain ivirtues. iJudges iare inot iallowed ito iact iarbitrarily;
iinstead, ithey imust ibase itheir irulings ion ithe iestablished irules iof ilaw.
iCitizens iare iable ito imanage itheir iactivity ibecause ithey iare iaware iof
ithe ilaws, iwhich iare imostly icodified. iAdditionally, icodification isupports
ijudges' iimpartial, ifearless iapplication iof ithe ilaw.
- Even iwith ithe ibenefits imentioned iabove, ithere iare idrawbacks ito ithe
iway ijustice iis iadministered. iThese idrawbacks imostly iinclude ithe
iformality, irigidity, iand iintricacy iof ithe ilegislation. iSir iSalmond imade
ithe ifollowing iobservation iwhen idiscussing ithe idrawbacks iof iapplying
ithe iestablished ilegal iprinciples ito ithe iadministration iof ijustice: i"Law
iis icertainly ia iremedy ifor igreater ievil, ibut iit ibrings iwith iit ievils iof
iits iown."
16
P a g e i| i17
- During ithe iVedic iperiod, iADR iwas iwidely iused. iAccording ito ithe
iepics iof ithe iRamayana iand iMahabharata, iHanumana iattempted ito
iresolve ithe ikidnapping iissue iby iproposing iRam ito iRavana, iwhile
iKrishna iattempted ito iresolve ithe idisagreement iover ithe idivision
ibetween iKaurava iand iPandava. iIt iproves ithat ithere iexisted ia
istrong iextra iconflict isettlement imechanism iin iancient iIndia ieven
ibefore ithe ireign iof imonarchs. iIn iancient iIndia, ithere iwas ia ivery
ieffective isystem iof iarbitration iand imediation. iDuring ithe ipre-
kingship iera, ithe iParishads, iPanchayats, iPugas, iSrenis, iand iKulas
ihandled iconflicts. iKulas ihere irefers ito igatherings iwith ifamily ior
ithe icommunity. iThat igroup iof ipeople ibelonged ito ithe isame
ifamily. iPuga iwas imade iup iof ia icollection iof ipeople ifrom ivarious
icastes, igroups, iand itribes iin ithe iarea iin iquestion. iThe imen's
iguilds iengaged iin isimilar ibusinesses iare ireferred ito ias iSrenis.
iTradesmen iand icraftspeople ifrom imany iracial igroups, iclans, iand
itribes iwere ipresent, ibut ithey ihad ionce imaintained isome isort iof
17
P a g e i| i18
18
P a g e i| i19
iIn iseveral iways, ithe iGana iCourt iresembled ithe iPuga iCourt. iThere
iwas ia iprofessional isquad iat iPuga iCourt. iAlthough ithey iwere ifrom
ivarious icastes, ithey iwere iall ifrom ithe isame iarea.
Prior ito ithe iarrival iof ithe iBritish, iPanchayats ihandled imost imatters
iin iline iwith ithe isettlement iprocess, iwhich iincluded iarbitration iand
imediation. iHowever, ithis iquickly ichanged. iThe iBritish iintroduced
icriminal iand icivil ilaws, iand ithey iplaced ia ihigh ivalue ion ijudicial
iand imagistrate itrials. iThe icurrent isystem iof icivil iand imagistratal
icourts ihas ia istrong iresemblance ito ithe iBritish imodel. iEven
ithroughout ithe iEnglish iera, ithe ipanchayat isystem iand ithe icustoms
iof ithe iPatil ior iMukhiya, ietc., iwere iprevalent. iBut ias itime iwent
ion, iits iauthority iand iholiness ibegan ito ifade. iBritish ipeople iquickly
isaw ithe iflaws iin itheir iapproach iand ithe ibenefits iof ithe iold iIndian
ijudicial isystem.
19
P a g e i| i20
According ito iavailable iliterature, ithe ifirst iLok iAdalat iwas iheld ion
iMarch i14, i1982, ifollowing iindependence. iIt itook iplace iat iGujarat's
iJunagarh. iFollowing ithat, iIndia ipassed ithe iLegal iServices
iAuthorities iAct iinto ilaw iin i1987. iBut iit itook iaround ieight iyears
ifor iit ito ibecome ia ilaw. iIt iwas iput iinto ipractice ion iSeptember i11,
i1995. iThe iprevious iArbitration iAct iof i1940 iwas iabolished idue ito
iseveral iflaws. iAfterwards, ithe iAC iAct iof i1996 iwas iintroduced.
iOrder iXXXIIA iadded ia ifamily iproblems iresolution iprovision ito
ithe iCPC iwhen iit iwas imodified iin i1976. iThe iHM iAct iof i1955
iincluded iprovisions ifor ireconciliation iinitiatives iunder isections
i23(2) iand i(3). i iA icomparable iclause i(s.34 i(3)) iwas iincluded iin
ithe iSpecial iMarriage iAct iof i1954. iThe iFamily iCourts iAct,
iintroduced iin i1984, imandates ithat ithe ifamily icourts imake ievery
ieffort ito ifacilitate ithe iresolution iof idisputes ibetween iparties.
iFollowing ithat, iin i1999, ithe iCPC's iOrder i10 iRules i1A, i1B, iand
i1C iwere ichanged iby is.89. iThe iIndian iADR ijurisprudence isaw
isignificant irevisions ias ia iresult.
- The iUnited iStates ibegan ito irecognize ithe ineed ifor ian ialternative
idispute iresolution isystem ibetween i1960 iand i1970. iThe iUS iquickly
ibegan ito isee ithe iconsequences iof iusing imediation ias ione iof ithe
istrategies. iPeople ibegan ito isee ithe iadvantages iof ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR) iover ithe ibacklog iand icost iof ithe ijudicial
isystem. iAcademicians, ithe iUS iCongress, icourts, ijudges, ithe
iAmerican iBar iAssociation, iand iall iprovincial igovernments
isupported ithe iadvancement iof ithe iADR isystem. iThe i1990 iCivil
iJustice iReform iAct iwas ipassed iby ithe iUS. iIt iincluded iprovisions
ifor ithe icreation iof ipractical imethods ito ireduce ithe ilength, iexpense,
iand ipendency iof icivil icases. iADR iwas iembraced iby ithe iFederal
iCourt iand iother icourts. iThe iAmerican iDissent iResolution i(ADR)
imovement iquickly igained itraction iin ithe icountry iand iis inow ia
20
P a g e i| i21
21
P a g e i| i22
iprotracted ilegal iprocess ithat ican itake iyears ito iobtain ia idecree iand
ieven ilonger ifor iits iexecution.
Due ito ithe irise iof iattorneys iand itheir iclients ipresenting icourts iwith ia
iwide irange iof iclaims, imany isocieties iare icurrently iexperiencing ia
icrisis iin ilitigation. iIt iappears ithat ithe iUnited iStates iinitiated ithis itrend,
iand iother inations iare iquickly ifollowing isuit. iGenerally ispeaking,
ilitigiousness iis iseen inegatively, ias ia isign iof imoral idecay iand isocietal
icollapse, ithe idisintegration iof isocial icohesiveness, iand ithe idistortion iof
ijustice iby ilegal itrickery. iHowever, ilawsuits imay ialso istrengthen ithe
ipoor iand imarginalized iin iaddition ito ibeing ia icrucial itactic ifor ipositive
isocial ichange12. iThe iLatin iword ilitigium iis ithe isource iof ithe iEnglish
iterm ilitigious. i'Dispute' iis iwhat ilitigiiim imeans. iIt icame ifrom ithe iLatin
22
P a g e i| i23
iverb i"litigare," iwhich imeaning i"to iquarrel." iAfterwards, ithe iOld iFrench
iand iMiddle iEnglish imodified iit. iLitigious iis ian iadjective ithat idescribes
ia ilegal idispute. iLitigious imatters iare ithose ithat iare idebatable ior
icontentious. iMost ipeople iin itoday's iculture inow iview ilitigation ias, iat
imost, ia inecessary ievil iwith ipotentially isignificant ipositive iaspects.
There iare itwo imain icategories iof idispute iresolution iprocedures: i1)
iConsensual iprocedures i(like icollaborative ilaw, imediation, iconciliation,
ior inegotiation), iwhere ithe iparties itry ito icome ito ian iagreement, iand i2)
iadjudicative iprocedures i(like ilitigation ior iarbitration), iwhere ia ijudge,
ijury, ior iarbitrator idecides ithe ioutcome. iIt ishould ibe imentioned ithat
inot iall iconflicts, ieven ithose iin iwhich iprofessional ilabor iis iinvolved,
iare iresolved. iIn ithe ifield iof idispute iresolution iresearch, ithese
iunresolvable iconflicts iconstitute ia iniche.
Litigation iis ithe imost ipopular imethod iof ijudicial iconflict isettlement.
iWhen ione iside ifiles ia ilawsuit iagainst ianother, ilitigation ibegins.
iGovernments iat iall ilevels ipromote ilitigation iin ifederal, istate, iand ilocal
icourts iaround ithe iglobe. iThe ilegislatively idefined irules iof ievidence
iand iprocedure, iamong iother inorms, icontrol ithe iextremely iformal
iprocedures. iAn iunbiased ijudge, ijury, ior iboth idecide ithe icase's ifate
ibased ion ithe iapplicable ilaw iand ithe ifactual iissues. iBoth iparties imay
iappeal ithe icourt's idecision ito ia ihigher icourt, ibut ithe idecision iis ifinal
iand inot iadvisory. iThe iprocess iof iresolving idisputes iin icourt iis iusually
iadversarial, iincluding iparties ior iinterests ithat iare iat iodds iwith ione
ianother iand itrying ito iget ithe ibest ipossible iresult ifor ithemselves.
23
P a g e i| i24
Some ipeople ilimit ithe idefinition iof idispute iresolution ito ialternative
idispute iresolution i(ADR), iwhich iincludes iextrajudicial iprocedures ilike
imediation, iarbitration, iand icollaborative ilaw ithat iare iused ito isettle
idisputes ibetween ior iamong ipeople, icorporations, igovernments, iand, iin
ithe icase iof ipublic iinternational ilaw, ieven istates. iADR ioften irequires
iconsent ifrom iall iparties, ieither iprior ito ior ifollowing ithe iemergence iof
ia iconflict, iin iorder ito ibe iused. iADR's iacceptability iand iuse ihave ibeen
irising igradually idue ito iits iperceived ibenefits, iwhich iinclude iincreased
iflexibility, ilower icosts ithan itraditional ilitigation, iand iquick iconflict
iresolution. iNonetheless, isome ihave iclaimed ithat ithese iprocedures
iviolate ipeople's iright ito ifile icomplaints iwith ithe icourts iand ithat
iextrajudicial idispute iresolution imay inot ibe ithe imost iequitable ioption
ifor iparties ithat ido inot ihave iequal ibargaining ipower, isuch ias iin ia
idispute iinvolving ia ibig icompany iand ia icustomer. iFurthermore,
iarbitration iand iother ialternative idispute iresolution iprocedures imight
icost ias imuch ias ior ieven imore ithan ilitigation iin isome isituations.
The iADR ihas imany iacceptable iforms iand imodes. iMost iimportant
iamong ithose iare iArbitration, iMediation, iConciliation iand iNegotiation
ietc.
a. Arbitration:
As ia itype iof ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR), iarbitration
iinvolves ireferring ia idispute ito ione ior imore iparties i(referred ito
ias i"arbitrators," i"arbiters," ior i"arbitral itribunal"), iwhose idecision
i(referred ito ias ithe i"award") ithey iagree ito ibe ibound iby. iIt iis ia
imethod iof isettlement iwhere ia ithird iparty iexamines ithe iissue
iand irenders ia iruling ithat iboth iparties imust iabide iby.
iCommercial idisputes iare imost ifrequently iresolved ithrough
iarbitration, iespecially iwhen iit icomes ito icross-border ibusiness
24
P a g e i| i25
c. Conciliation:
25
P a g e i| i26
As ia iresult iof itheir iexcessive icaseloads, icourts iall iaround ithe ination iare
iincreasingly iusing inon-judicial iresolution iprocedures. iAdvocates iof
ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) iclaim ithat iADR isaves imoney ifor
ithe iparties iinvolved iin ithe ilawsuit, ishortens ithe itime ibetween ithe ifiling
iof ia icase iand iits iresolution, iincreases ithe isatisfaction iof ilitigants iwith
ithe iway itheir idisputes iare isettled, iand ifrees iup ijudges' itime ifor icases
ithat itruly irequire iit.
b. Sec i89 iof iCPC i- iSettlement iof idisputes ioutside ithe iCourt.
When ithe icourt idetermines ithat ithere iare icomponents iof ia
isettlement ithat icould ibe iacceptable ito ithe iparties, iit iwill idraft
ithe iterms iof ithe isettlement iand iprovide ithem ito ithe iparties ifor
icomment. iFollowing ithe iparties' icomments, ithe icourt imay irevise
ithe iterms iof ia ipotential isettlement iand irefer ithe imatter ifor:
- iarbitration;
- iconciliation
- ijudicial isettlement iincluding isettlement ithrough iLok iAdalat; ior
- imediation.
26
P a g e i| i27
The iappeals iprocesses ifor iboth iarbitration iand itribunals iare iquite
iintricate. iFor iinstance, iappeals ito ithe iHigh iCourt imay ionly ibe
ifiled iunder ispecific icircumstances iunder ithe iArbitration iand
iConciliation iAct iof i1996. iADR iis imeant ito iavoid ithese
iproblems, ibut ithe iintricacy iof ithe iappeals imechanism ialso
imakes ithe iprocess itake ilonger iand icosts imore imoney.
27
P a g e i| i28
The ifact ithat imany iarbitrators icharge ia iportion iof ithe idispute's
icost ias itheir ifee iis ihighly iprohibitive iand idemotivating. iThere
imight inot ibe imuch iof ia idifference ibetween iJDR iand iADR iin
isuch ia isituation.
28
P a g e i| i29
a. iMediation
Conciliation iand iarbitration iare inot ithe isame ias imediation. iThe
iprimary idistinction ibetween iconciliation iand imediation iis ithat ithe
ifacts iprovided iby ithe iparties iare inot irecorded iin ithe imediation
iprocess. iIn icontrast, iin ithe ievent ithat iconciliation ifails, ithe
iconciliator imay iprovide ia idecision ibased ion ithe iinformation ithat ithe
iparties ihave ipresented ito ihim. iUnder isome ilaws i(such ias ithe iFamily
iCourts iAct), iconciliation iis irequired; imediation iis inot. iRegarding
iarbitration, ithe ithird iparty ithat ireceives ia idispute ireferral iand isits iin
ias ia ijudge ioutside iof icourt icontrols ithe iproceedings. iWhile ithe
29
P a g e i| i30
imediator iengages iin iconversation iwith ithe iparties, ithe iarbitrator idoes
inot. i iThe iarbitrator idetermines iwho iis iliable iand iholds ithe iparties
iaccountable; ithe imediator idoes inot iassign iblame. iThe imediator
icannot iexplicitly ipropose ia isolution; ionly ithe iarbitrator imay. iThe
iPanchayat isystem icombined imediation iand iarbitration. i
The i"terms iof icompromise" ithat ithe imediator irecorded ifrom ithe
iparties' iagreement iare iverified iby ithe icourt ibefore ithe idecree iis
iissued. iIn iaccordance iwith ithe iconfirmed iconditions iof ithe
iagreement, ithe icourt imust iissue ian iappropriate idecree. iThe idecree
imust ibe idrafted icorrectly, iand ithe icourt ishould inot itake ia icasual
iattitude. iThe icourt ihas ibeen iobserved ito ineglect iits itask ifrequently
ibecause iof ibusyness ior iother ifactors. iThe iCivil iProcedure iCode,
i1908, isection i152, iprovides ithe iCourt iwith ithe iauthority ito irectify
isuch ia imistake. iThe iwell-known iproverb i"actus icuriae ineminem
igravabit" istates ithat iit iis ithe iresponsibility iof ithe icourt ito irepair iits
iwrong. iNobody iought ito isuffer ias ia iresult iof ithe ierrors imade iby ithe
icourt. iThe icourts imust iuse itheir iauthority ito ifix ithese imistakes iand
idraft ithe iappropriate idecree iin iaccordance iwith ithe imediation ireport.13
30
P a g e i| i31
ibut ilike ithe iPanchayat iPattern, ithe ipractice iof iLok-Adalat iwas
ipushed iback iduring ithe iBritish iera. iHowever, ifollowing iindependence,
ithe inotion iof iLok-Adalat iwas irevitalized, iand iit ihas ibecome iquite
ipopular iamong ilitigants iagain iin irecent idecades. iAs ia iresult, ithe
iancient iconcept iof iLok-Adalat ihas ireceived ilegal isupport, iand iit ihas
ibecome ian iessential iand ipopular iADR itool iamong ilitigants. iThe
iLok-Adalat iaward ihas ibeen igranted ia imonetary ivalue icomparable ito
ithe icivil icourt idecrees ithat iare ienforceable. iThe iaward iof iLok-Adalat
iis ifinal iand ibinding ion ithe iparties. iThe iLok-Adalat isystem ihas ia
ilong ihistory iin iIndian ilaw. iLok-Adalat ipractice irepresents iIndian
iculture iand ithe inotion iof ijustice iin iancient iIndia.
b.1. iCases iSuitable ito iRefer ifor iLok-Adalat i: iAny icivil iand
icompoundable icriminal icase i(Pending icases) iand i iAny idispute ior
imatter iwhich iis iabout ito iconvert iinto ilitigation i(Pre-litigation)
b.2. iReference iof iCases ifor iLok-Adalat i: iReference iof iPending
iCases: iand iReference iof iPre-ligation
b.3. iMobile iLok-Adalat i[providing ijustice iat idoorsteps]
c. Arbitration
The iarbitrator iattempts ito iresolve iand idecide ithe iissues ibrought
ibefore ihim. iHe iis ichosen iby ithe iparties ior ithe icourts. iThere iis ino
iprescribed imethod ithat ithe iArbitrator imust ifollow. iHe iis inot irequired
ito iobey ievidence iand iprocess ilegislation. iThe iArbitration iand
iConciliation iAct ispecifies ithe ifunction iof ithe iarbitrator iin isuch
iadjudication iand ihis iresponsibility ito irender ian iaward. i14Section i43J,
iin iconjunction iwith ithe iEighth iSchedule iof ithe iArbitration iAct,
iaddresses ithe iqualifying iconditions ifor iselecting ithe iArbitrator. iThe
iAC i(Amendment) iAct, i2019, iincorporates ithis iclause. iArbitration iis
ione iof ithe imost iadaptable imodes iof idispute iresolution, iwhich iis iwhy
iparties ilike iit. iTraditional icourts irequire iparties ito iwait ifrom i10 ia.m.
ito i5.00 ip.m. i
31
P a g e i| i32
They iare inot irequired ito iadhere ito ithe istringent irestrictions iof
iprocedural ilegislation. iThey imay imerely ifollow ithe iArbitrator's
iprocedure, iand iadditional iformalities imay ibe iwaived.
The istages iof icivil isuit iand ivarious iprovisions isuch ias iadjournment,
i90 ior imore idays itime ito ifile iwritten istatement, iamendment, ievidence,
iappointment iof icommissioner iand ireceiver, isettlement iand irecasting
iof iissues ias iper inew iamendments, irecording iadmission iand idenial iof
idocuments, iand iso ion iwhich iare irequired iin icivil ilitigation ibefore
ithe icourt iactually islow idown ithe ilitigation, iand iall isuch ihurdles ican
ibe iovercome ithrough ithe iArbitrator's iprocedure.
There iis ino icountry iin ithe iplanet ithat ican iclaim ito ibe iself-
sufficient. iEvery icountry imust irely ion iothers ifor itrade,
itechnology, iand iresources, iamong iother ithings. iThis iis ithe iage
iof idependency. iBecause iIndia, ilike iother iemerging iand ideveloped
idemocratic inations, ibelieves iin iuniversal ibrotherhood, iit iis ia
isignatory ito ia inumber iof iconventions, icharters, iand itreaties.
iThere iis ithe ipossibility iof ia idisagreement ior iconflict ias ia iresult
iof iinternational ieconomic idealings. iTo ideal iwith isuch isituations,
inumerous iinternational itribunals iexist iwhere idisagreements iare ito
ibe idecided ithrough iarbitration. iSome iinternational iarbitral
iinstitutions iare ilisted ibelow.
The iPCA iis ialso iknown ias ithe iHague iTribunal. iIt iis ian
iinternational iorganization ibased iin ithe iDutch icity iof iThe iHague.
iIt iwas iestablished iin i1899. iOn ithis iday, ithe ifirst iHague iPeace
iConference iwas iconvened. iIt iis ithe ioldest iinternational idispute
iresolution iagency. iBy ithe iyear i2002, i96 inations ihave isigned ithe
32
P a g e i| i33
It iis, ias ithe iname iimplies, ian iinternational ilevel ichamber iof imember
istates. iIt iaids iin ithe igrowth iof iinternational ibusiness. iIt ihas icreated
icommittees iin iseveral inations ivia iwhich iit icommunicates iwith ithe
igovernments iof imember istates. iThis inot ionly iprovides ijobs ion ia
iglobal iscale, ibut iit ialso iaids ithe irespective igovernments iin ithe
ieconomic iprosperity iof itheir iown icountries. iIn itoday's iglobalized
iworld, iit iserves ias ia ipartner iin ithe isuccess iof imember icountries.
iDue ito iits iunique iwidely idistributed iplatform, iactivities, ilocation,
iprestige, iand igoodwill, ithe iChamber iplays ian iessential irole iin
iresolving iinternational ieconomic idisputes.
The iUNCITRAL iis ian iorganization ithat iworks iin ithe itopic iof
i"International iTrade iLaw." iIt iis ione iof ithe iUnited iNations' ibodies.
33
P a g e i| i34
d. Conciliation
The iparties ior ithe icourts iappoint ithe iconciliators. iThey iattempt ito
iresolve ithe iissue ithrough iconciliation. iIt iis igoverned iunder ithe iAC
iAct iof i1996. iThe iConciliators iare iauthorized iby ilegislation i(S.67,
i73) ito isubmit ivarious isuggestions iin iorder ito isettle ithe idisputes. iThe
iConciliators iare ito ioutline ithe ilikely isettlement iterms, iwhich ihe imay
iamend ian iunlimited inumber iof itimes iin iorder ito iachieve ithe ipurpose
iof isettlement. iHis ijob igoes ibeyond ithat iof ia imediator.15 iConciliation
iprocesses iare ioutlined iin isections i61 ito i81 iof ithe iAC iAct iof i1996.
iThe ireward iis iworth ia idecree.
According ito iSection i61, iconciliation imay ibe iapplied ito iany isuch
idisputes ithat ihave iarisen idue ito ia ilegal irelationship, iwhich iis inot
ilimited ito icontractual irelationships, iand iit iis ialso iapplicable ito iall
iproceedings irelating ito ior iarising iout iof iany isuch idisputes. iThe
iparties ihave ibeen igiven ithe ifreedom ito iagree ion iand idecide ion
iwhatever iprocess ito ibe iused ifor iconciliation. i
They imay ialso ifollow ithe imethod ioutlined iin ithe i1996 iAct. iSection
i62 ialso iallows ithe iparties ito iidentify ithe iissue iand ithen iextend ia
iconciliatory iinvitation. iAnd ithe iother iparty iis ifree ito iaccept ior
idecline ithe iinvitation. iIf ithe iinvitation iis iaccepted, ithe iconciliation
iprocesses iwill ibegin; iotherwise, ithey iwill ibe iterminated iimmediately.
iIf ithe iother iparty idoes inot iaccept ithe iinvitation iwithin i30 idays, ithe
iinvitation iis iconsidered ideclined iby ithe iother iparty. iThis iis iknown
ias ia ideeming iprovision.
Summarization iof iConciliation iProcedure:
The itechnique iis isummarized ias ifollows:
(a) iThere iis ino iset iconciliation iprocedure. iThe iprocedure ican ibe
idetermined ibased ion ithe ifacts iof ithe icase.
34
P a g e i| i35
(b) iThe iConciliator imay irequest, iinstruct, ior iallow ia iparty ito
iprovide ia istatement, ipapers, iand ievidence.
(c) iHis ichoice imust ibe ifounded ion ijustice, iequity, iand ia iclear
iconscience.
e. Conclusion
This ichapter idemonstrates ithe iavailability iof inumerous iADR itools iin
iIndia. iArbitration, iMediation, iConciliation, iand iLok-Adalat iprocedures
iare isimple, iclear, iand ibeneficial ifor ithe iaverage iperson ito ifollow.
iThese iinstruments ihave ithe iability ito itake iover ithe iBritish iCourt
ipattern iof iIndia isince ithey iare iintended iat imutually isatisfying
idisposition iof icause iand icreating ihealthy irelationships iamong ithe
iparties. iAccording ito ia irecent idevelopment i(amendment ieffective idate
i23.10.2015), ithe iArbitral iTribunal iis irequired ito ipass ithe iaward
iwithin ia itime ilimit iof ione iyear, iwhich ishould ibe icalculated ifrom ithe
idate ion iwhich ithe iarbitrator ireceived inotice iof ihis iappointment, iand
ian iextension iof isix imonths ican ibe igranted iby ithe iparties' ijoint
idecision. iAccording ito iCivil iProcedure iADR
35
P a g e i| i36
iunable ito iaccess ithe icourts idue ito ieconomic, isocial, iand iother
ifactors. iAs ia iresult, iit iis ithe icountry's iresponsibility ito ienact
iappropriate ilaws, iplans, iand iso ion, iso ithat ieveryone ihas ithe
ichance ito iseek ijustice. iNo iimpairment iof iany ikind ishall iimpede
ithe iadministration iof ijustice.16 iThe istate iis irequired ito i"ensure
iequality ion ian iequal ibasis iwith iequal iopportunity ito iall." iThe
ifundamental ipremise iof ijustice iis iequal itreatment ifor ieverybody.
iTo iaccomplish iall iof ithis, ithe istate imust ipay ienough
iconsideration ito ithe iresolution iof iinternational iand ilocal iissues
ithrough iADR.
C. The iAC iAct, i1996 i(as iamended iby ithe iAct iof i2019
iand i2020)
As istated iin ithe ipreamble, ithe iAC iAct, i1996 iis ibased ion
iUNCITRAL iArbitration iLaw iand iConciliation iRules. iThe iUnited
36
P a g e i| i37
37
P a g e i| i38
G. Conclusion
This ichapter idemonstrates ithat, iwhile ithere iare iadequate ilaws
igoverning ithe ivarious iADR itechniques, ithey iare isufficiently
idefined ibut inot icompletely ideveloped. iStill, idefinitions iof iADR
iinstruments isuch ias iMediation, iLok iAdalat, iArbitration, iand
iConciliator iare inot iprovided iin ithe irelevant ilegislations, iincluding
ithe iCPC, ithe iLSA iAct iof i1987, iand ithe iAC iAct iof i1996. iOne
iof ithe iresults iis ithat ithere iare ienough iregulations iand iprocedures
iin iplace ito iprovide ilegal ihelp ito iall isegments iof isociety. iIn ithe
iAfcon iCase, ithe iSupreme iCourt istated ithat imany icourts ihad iyet
ito iapply iSection i89 iof ithe iCPC.77 iAs ia iresult, iit iwould ibe
iappropriate ifor ithe itrial icourts ito iset ithe ischedule iand ithe
ideadline ifor iimplementing ithe iADR iobjectives. iIt iis ialso
ibelieved ithat ithe igovernment ishould iraise ipublic iawareness ion ia
ibig iscale iin iorder ifor iinformation iabout ivarious ilegal iassistance
iinitiatives ito ireach ithe ipoor.
38
P a g e i| i39
It iis inot isimple ito igo ifrom ithe iUK i(English/European) ilitigation
isystem ito iage-old iand ineglected iconflict isettlement imechanisms.
iADR ifunctions ias ia imaster ikey, iopening ithe ilock iof ilitigants'
ithoughts iand iremoving ithe i"stale istock iof icases" ifrom
icourtrooms. iIf ithe ihurdles ito iits iexecution iare ieliminated, iit
imay iprovide ia iquick ifix. iArbitration iin ithe iform iof ilegislation
iwas ifirst iproposed iin i1940, ibut iit idid inot ifunction ias iwell ias
ipredicted. iThe iflaws iwere ifixed, ithe iloopholes iwere iclosed, iand
ithe inew ilaw iwent iinto ieffect iin i1996. iIt iwas iwritten iin
iresponse ito ia iUnited iNations iproposal.
Forums isuch ias iLok-Adalat iand iMediation iare iin ifull iswing,
iand iit ihas inow ibeen iembraced iby ipractically iall iindustries.
iThere iare istill isome iconcerns ithat ithe iADR iis idealing iwith.
iThese iissues imay ibe isimply isplit iinto itwo icategories: i(i)
iinherent ilimitations, isuch ias isubjects iof iintrinsic ifaults, igaps iin
ithe ilegislation, iand iso ion, iand i(2) ihuman-based, isuch ias ihuman
iattitude iand ibehavioural ielements. iWe imay ieither iattempt ito
ifollow iand iapply ithe ilaw ito isettle ithe isituation, ior iwe ican
ioperate ias ifault ifinding imachinery, iprofit imaking imachines, ior
itools ito ipostpone ithe ifruit iand ibother ithe iopposing iparty. iIn
ithe inext isubpoint, ithese itwo icategories iare iexpounded ion, ias
iwell ias isuggestions ifor iovercoming ithe idifficulties.
39
P a g e i| i40
D. Conclusion
The iexamination iof iimplementation iissues ireveals ithat ithere iare itwo
itypes iof iproblems iin iimplementation: i(1) iinherent iconstraints iand i(2)
ihuman-based. iThe ifirst igroup iincludes imaterials ithat, iby idefinition,
icannot ibe icompounded. iCriminal inon-compounding isituations iand icivil
icases iinvolving imany iparties iwith icompeting iinterests ior ia ilack iof
40
P a g e i| i41
ijurisdiction ito icompound iare itwo iinstances iof iinherent ilimits. iThe
isecond igroup icomprises ihuman-based iissues isuch ias ilack iof iknowledge
iamong ithe iparties, ilack iof imotivation ion ithe iside iof iorganizers i/
iPenal i/ istakeholders, iinexperienced imediator/ iconciliator/ iarbitrator/ iLok
iAdalat ipenal, iand iso ion. iAs ia iresult, ithe isolution ifor ithe isecond
igroup iof iissues iexists. iThe iformer iissue icannot ibe iresolved, iwhereas
ithe ilatter iis ireadily iresolved.
41
P a g e i| i42
According ito ithe iIndian iSupreme iCourt, ithe ipurpose iof ienacting ithe
iAct iis ito ienable ithe irapid iresolution iof icommercial idisputes iand ito
ideliver ifair idecisions iat ifairly ijustified icosts ito ithe iparties. iThe iAct
ioffers ia idetailed iapproach ifor iachieving ithe igoal istated iin ithe
iintroduction. iThe imethod ioutlined itherein iis inot ionly ia iformality,
iand iparties iand icourts iare iobligated ito igive ithem isignificant
iinterpretation iin iorder ito iexpedite ijustice, iso ithat iit imay i(1) ibenefit
ithe iparties, i(2) iaid ito iflourish icommerce, itrade, iand ibusiness, iand
i(3) ilead ito ithe ination's ieconomic iprosperity.18
Section i10 iof ithe iAct iaddresses ijurisdiction. iIt ihas ipermitted ifor ithe
iestablishment iof icommercial iarbitral iforums ifor ithe iresolution iof
idisputes iat iboth ithe idomestic iand iinternational ilevels. iDifferent
icourts ihave ibeen igiven ithe iauthority ito irule ion isubjects iof ivarying
isignificance. iThe iPrincipal iCity iCivil iCourt, iHigh iCourt, iand
iAppellate iDivision iCourts ihave ibeen iestablished ias ispecial icourts ito
ihear isuch icases. iSome iof ithese icourts ihave ibeen idesignated ias
icourts iof ioriginal ijurisdiction, iwith ithe iauthority ito itry iand iresolve
icommercial idisputes iover ia iparticular isum, ias iwell ias iother imatters.
iCourt idivisions ihave ibeen iestablished ias iappeal itribunals ito
42
P a g e i| i43
idetermine ithe iaccuracy ior iotherwise iof idecisions idelivered iby isuch
ioriginal ijurisdiction icourts.
According ito ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iAmbalal's iCase19, ithe iexpeditious
idisposition iof ithe icases iof iplaintiffs, iparticularly ithose iinvolved iin
icommerce/business iand itrade, ileads ito ithe ination's ieconomic
iprosperity. iThe iprompt iresolution iof isuch imatters iby ithe icourts iwill
43
P a g e i| i44
isend ia ipositive imessage ito ithe icommercial ifraternity, iand ithose iwho
iinvest ior iintend ito iinvest iwill inot ihave ito iworry iabout ithe idelay
iand iloss idue ito iinvestment istalemate, iand iit iwill ihelp ito irestore
iIndia's ilegal isystem's ipositive iimage. iGiven ithe imassive ibacklog iof
iother icases i(as idetailed iin iChapters iII, iVIII, iand iIX), iit iis
iimpossible ito ipredict ihow ilong iit iwill itake ito iresolve icommercial
iconflicts iif ithey iare ileft ito ithe isame iCourts. iMediation ihas
ipreviously iproven ito ibe ieffective iin ithe iresolution iof icommercial
iconflicts. iGiven ithe ilarge inumber iof icases ipending iand ithe ibenefits
iof imediation, iit iwas ithought inecessary ito iestablish ispecial
iCommercial iCourts iand ito iinclude imandatory imediation iprovisions
iin ipre-litigation icases.
E. Conclusion
The ibusiness iCourts iAct ihas imade iit ipossible ifor ibusiness ilitigants
ito ireach ipre-trial iand ipost-trial iagreements. iThe icourts ihave inow
iimplemented ionline imediation iand iLok-Adalat. iThis ieffort iby ithe
icourts imay ilikely ihasten ithe iresolution. iThe iparties iand itheir
icounsel iare inot irequired ito iphysically iattend icourt iand imay idedicate
itheir ivaluable itime ito ithe idevelopment iof itheir ibusiness ior iwork,
iwhich iindirectly ihelps ito inational iprosperity. iThe iold iimage iof
iclients iwaiting i(from iten io'clock iin ithe imorning ito isix io'clock iin
44
P a g e i| i45
ithe ievening) iin iand iout iof icourt irooms ifor itheir icounsel iand icase
imay isoon ibecome ian iepisode iof ithe ipast i(history), iif ilitigants iseize
ithe ichance iand igive iADR ia ireal ieffort.
45
P a g e i| i46
Some ischolars iwho iare ihostile ito iADR itools ifeel ithat iif ithe inumber iof
icases iin icourts idecreases, iso iwill ithe idemand ifor ian iADR imethod.
iThey ialso isuggest ithat iif ilitigation iexpenses iare ireduced, ithe idemand
ifor i"alternative iconflict iresolution imechanisms" iwill idiminish.
This ibasis iis iflawed iin imy iopinion ifor itwo ireasons. iTo ibegin iwith,
ithe iestablishment iof icases iwill inever icease. iIt iwill icontinue ito irise ias
ia iresult iof icommercialization, icorporate iexpansion, icompetition, iand
imore ilegal iknowledge. iSecond, iit iwill ialways ibe iimpossible ito iresolve
idisputes isuccessfully iusing isolely ithe icourt itrial isystem. iADR ioffers
iseveral iadvantages iover ithe itraditional icourt itrial iformat. iIt iaids iin ithe
iexpeditious idisposition iof icases. iIt iprevents ithe iinitiation iof
iproceedings isuch ias iappeals, imodifications, iand iso ion, ihence ilowering
ithe iexpense iof ilitigation. iIt ialso iprevents iany ipossible iconflict ibetween
ithe iparties.
There iis ialso ithe iviewpoint ithat iall itypes iof idifficulties icannot ibe
iresolved ioutside iof ithe icourt, iand ihence iissues imust ibe itried iin
icourts. iThis igroup iin ifavor iof ithis iargument ioverlooks ithe ifact ithat
isome isituations icannot ibe idecided iby ithe icourts iand imust ibe isettled
46
P a g e i| i47
ioutside iof ithe icourts. iSuits ifor iinjunctions iare ia iprominent iexample iof
isuch iconflicts, iin iwhich ithe icourts icannot icontrol iand ioversee ithe
icompliance iwith ia iruling ior iorder.
The imajor itechnique ifor isettling idisputes iis ithrough iADR itools/methods
ithat iresult iin ia isettlement ioutside iof ia icourt iof ilaw. iADR ican ialso ibe
iused ito isettle ipending iand iunfiled icases. iADR ihas ibeen iused ito isettle
ithe iclaims. iThe iCases iare inot iseeded, icultivated, ior iconcluded iin iorder
ito iprovide ifood ior imaterial ito iADR. iSome ilawsuits iare ibrought iin
icourt iand ipushed ito itrial iin iorder ito idrag ithe iother iparty iand imake
ihim isuffer. iIn ithis icase, ithe icourts imay ibe iconsidered ito ihave ibeen
iestablished ito iplay ia idirty igame iby icertain iunscrupulous ilitigants.
iSimilarly, icertain iinstances iare ieither inon-adjudicable ior inon-triable.
iBecause iof isuch isituations ibefore ithe icourts, iother icases ido inot
ireceive iappropriate itime iand ichance ifor ihearing iand idisposition. iThis
iis ithe iprimary ireason iwhy ithe iADR imechanism imust ifunction iin
iunison iwith, irather ithan ias ia ireplacement ito, ithe icourt itrial iprocess.
Dispute iresolution iprocedures ihave ialways ibeen ioutside iof ithe ilegal
isystem, ibut ithey iwere inever ias iprevalent iin icivil ilife ias ithey iare inow.
iThese imethods iare ibeing idebated iby ilegal iexperts, icommunity ileaders,
iand icorporate iexecutives.
On ithe ione ihand, iancient i(i.e., iVedic iand iAncient iperiod) iconflict
iresolution isystems iare ibeing irevised, iwhile inew iways iare ibeing
ideveloped ito imeet ithe idemands iof isociety. iAccording ito ithe ifindings,
ithese ialternative iconflict iresolution imechanisms ioperate ias ia iseparate
ientity, inot ias ia ireplacement ifor ithe icourt isystem. iADR idevices ihave
ithe ipotential ito ibe iemployed iin ievery iaspect iof ilife iwhere ithere iis ithe
ipossibility iof iconflict, ia ipotential ithat iis ijust iwaiting ito ibe irealized.
The iconcept iof ijustice iis ireflected iin ithe iPreamble iof ithe iIndian
iConstitution. iIt iensures ifairness iin iall ispheres, iincluding isocial,
ieconomic, iand ipolitical. iAs ia iresult, ithe iconstitution's imandate iis ito
iensure ijustice. iArticle i39A iof ithe iIndian iConstitution ipromises ifree
ilegal iaid ito ithe ipoor iand ivulnerable ielements iof isociety, ias iwell ias
47
P a g e i| i48
iequal ijustice ifor ieveryone. iAccording ito iArticles i14 iand i22(1), ithe
iState imust iensure iequality ibefore ithe ilaw iand ia ijudicial isystem ithat
ifosters ijustice ion ithe ibasis iof iequal iopportunity ifor iall ipeople. iIndia iis
ia icountry idevoted ito iupholding ijustice iand idefending icitizens'
isocioeconomic iand icultural irights. iIt iis icritical ito iaddress iconflicts ias
isoon ias ipossible iin iorder ito iachieve ithis iconstitutional ipurpose.
iBecause ithe icourts ialone icannot ihandle ithe ilarge ibacklog iof icases, ithe
iaim ican ibe iefficiently ireached ithrough ithe iemployment iof iADR
iprocedures. iThese iare ithe ifundamental ireasons ifor iADR's ideployment
iin iIndia.
48
P a g e i| i49
8. ADR idestroys ithe iego, ias iseen iby iparties icrying itogether iand
iapologizing.
9. ADR iaids iin ithe iformation iof inew ibonds iand iagreements, iso
iavoiding ifuture idisputes.
10. ADR ialso iallows ithe iparties ito iresolve iall irelated imatters ithat
iwere inot icovered iin itheir ipleadings ifiled iwith ithe icourts.
11. The iprocedure iis iquite iadaptable. iThere iis ia iswitching ifacility
iprovided. iThe iparties imay ireturn ito icase itrial imode. iThey iare
ifree ito idiscontinue iADR iat iany itime iand ireturn ito icourt.
12. The iparties ihave ithe ioption ito idisclose isecret iinformation, iwhich
iare inever ireleased.
13. ADR iis iassisting iin ithe irestoration iof ithe iimage iof ithe ijustice
idelivery isystem.
14. ADR iis ian iextra idispute iresolution iprocess, iand iso iforth.
In iterms iof iADR's idrawbacks, ithey iare irather iminor iand ireadily
iremedied. iOne iof ithese iflaws iis ithat iit iwas iexploited iby inumerous
iparties ito ipostpone ithe isubject. iIn icertain isituations, ithe iparties iare
iforced ito iincur iadditional icosts iin ithe iform iof iArbitration,
iConciliation, iand iMediation ifees iand icharges. iHowever, iin isome
icircumstances, ithe iparties imay ibe iable ito iafford, iand ithe icourt iorders
ithe iparties ifor ipayment ionly iwhen ithey iare iwilling ito isuffer ithe
iexpenses, iand iproblems iare inot ireferred iunless ithe iparties iagree ito
ifund ithe iexpenses iof iADR.
49
P a g e i| i50
A. Introduction
Mediation, iarbitration, iand iLok iAdalat iwere ieffective iADR imechanisms
iin ithe iadministration iof ijustice iin iancient iIndia. iThe iADR itools iwere
iemployed ias iprimary itechniques iof iconflict isettlement irather ithan ias ia
ibackup iplan. iAs ia iresult, iit iwould ibe imore iacceptable ito irefer ito
iADR iinstruments ias isuitable ior isupplementary iconflict iresolution
imechanisms. iFrom i1600 ito i1947, iADR itechniques iwere ithe iresult iof
ithe iBritish iformal ilegal isystem. iVarious ilaws, irules, iregulations,
ischemes, iand iaction iplans ihave irecently ibeen ialtered, ireplaced,
iabolished, iand iintroduced iwith ithe igoal iof iusing iADR iinstruments iin
iselected iPre iand iPost ilitigation. iThe ireferral iof ilitigation ito ian iADR
iforum ihas ibeen imade imandatory iin icertain itypes iof idisputes. i
B.Findings
ADR iTools iArbitration, iConciliation, iLok-Adalat, iand iMediation ihave
iall ibeen idemonstrated ito ibe ieffective idispute iresolution itools. iThe iLok
iAdalat ischemes iare ihelpful. iLitigants idraft itheir iown ijudgments iin ithe
iform iof isettlement iagreements iwith ithe iassistance iof ian iArbitrator,
iConciliator, iMediator, iand iLok-Adalat. iADR iaids iin ithe itimely
idisposition iof ithe ilis iand icase. iParties ireceive ijustice iwithout ilosing
ithe icase ior itheir irelationship iwith ione ianother. iThe iratio iof isettlement
iby iMediator, iPenal iof iLok iAdalat, iConciliators, iand iArbitral iAwards
iin iall iStates idemonstrates ithe isuccess iof iADR. iADR ifacilitates iquick
iresolution. iIt irequires iless iinfrastructure ithan itraditional icourtrooms,
ichambers, idistinct isections/departments iof icourts, iand iso iforth. iAs ia
iresult, iADR iforums iare ialso imore iprofitable ifor ithe igovernment. iThe
iADR iprocess ihas ievolved iinto iits iown iinstitution. iWhen ithe iratio iof
iCourt iestablishment iand idisposition iof icases iis icompared ito ithe iADR
iforum, iit iis iclear ithat iADR iis ifar imore ieffective ithan ithe iCourt
50
P a g e i| i51
According ito ithe ireport, iin icertain icases, ijustice ihas ibeen icompromised
iin ithe iLok-Adalat iin ithe idash ifor ia iquick isettlement. iThe idecision
iwas iforced ion ithe ilitigants irather ithan ibeing ireached ivia imutual
iagreement. iOn ithe ibasis iof ihis imother's ipursis, ithe iparticulars iof
icharge iof ithe iChild i(juvenile) iwere irecorded iwithout ihearing ihim iin
ihis iabsence, iand ia ifinding iof iadmission iof iguilt iwas irecorded. iEven
ithe ifundamental iright ito ihear iwas iviolated. iMany ipanelists iwere
iobserved ifunctioning ias ijudges iin icases iheard iby iLok iAdalat. iThere
iare icases iof iawards ibeing imade iwithout ithe iknowledge ior iapproval iof
iall ipersons iinvolved. iThere ihave ibeen icases iwhere ia icase iwas iheard,
ian iaward iwas iproduced, iand ithe iparties iwere iinstructed ito isign ithe
isettlement iagreement iwithout ifirst igaining iconsensus.
51
P a g e i| i52
D. Criticism
1. In imany icircumstances, iparties iuse iADR itechniques ito
ipostpone imatters.
2. It ihas ibeen iseen ithat imany iinstances ihave isimply ibeen
isubmitted ito iADR i[such ias imediation iand iLok iAdalat] iin
iorder ito icomplete ithe iquota ior ifollow ithe idirective. iIt iwas
ialso idiscovered ithat icertain iof ithe icriminal iissues iunder
iconsideration iwere inot icompoundable iunder isection i320 iof
ithe iCr.P.C. iThey iwere iunsuitable ifor ihabitation.
3. iInstead iof ifilling ithe ipositions, ithe iADR iwork ihas ibeen
iassigned ito ithe isame ijudges. iJudges iwho iare ialready
ioverworked iare iunable ito idevote imuch itime ito iADR i[such
ias imediation iduring iworking ihours].
4. iInadequate iinfrastructure iexists ifor iADR isessions.
5. The igovernment iregards ithe ijudiciary ias ia ineglected ison, ias
ievidenced iby ivacancies iin ithe icourts iand ia ilack iof ibasic
ifacilities.
6. Few ipeople iare iaware iof iADR itools.
7. ADR idoes inot iwork iwhen ithe iparties idemand ia ijudicial
idecision.
8. ADR iis iineffective iwhen iparties ilack iauthority.
9. iParties' ilack iof ifaith iin ithe imediator i(e.g., idoubts iabout ihis
ipractice ior ipower) irenders imediation iineffective.
10. ADR iis iineffective iwhen ithe imediator, iconciliator, iarbitrator,
ior ipunitive ijudge iis inot itrained iand iknowledgeable iin ithe
irelevant ifield iof iADR iand ilegislation.
E.Suggestions
1. In ithe iLok iAdalat, ithe ipanel ishould iavoid iadjudication ior
iimposition iof iits iconclusion. iIt ibreeds iindifference. iLitigants
iwill ilose itrust iin ithe iLok iAdalat. iPresiding iofficers ishould
ibe iproperly itrained ifor ithis ipurpose. iThe iJharkhand iHigh
52
P a g e i| i53
53
P a g e i| i54
54
P a g e i| i55
55
P a g e i| i56
e. As ia iresult, ithe iscope iof ithis istudy iis iconfined ito iinvestigating ithe
iimpact ion ithe ipeople iof iIndia.
I. Conclusion
The igoal iof ithe icurrent istudy iwas ito iinvestigate iand ievaluate ifive ikey
iconcerns, inamely i(1) iWill ithe icourts' iworkload idecrease ias ia iresult iof
iADR iadoption? iDoes ialternative idispute iresolution i(ADR) icontribute
ito iprompt ijustice? i(3) iDoes ithe iuse iof iADR ias ia itool ito iexpedite
idisposal inegatively iimpact ithe iadministration iof ijustice? i(4) iIs iADR ia
iuseful iaid ifor iunderprivileged, ioppressed, iand isocially iand
ieconomically imarginalized igroups? iand i(5) iThe iaforementioned iqueries
iappear ito ihave ileft iplaintiffs iwondering i"whether ito iget imatter
ireferred ito iADR ior inot"? iNotwithstanding iinstances iof iabuse iby
icunning ilitigants, ithe iresults iof ithe istudy ishow ithat ialternative idispute
iresolution i(ADR) ihas iseveral iadvantages. iIts ispecial iqualities imight
56
P a g e i| i57
imake iit ithe imain iway ithat ijustice iis iadministered. iIt ihas ithe ipotential
ito iboth ilessen ithe iworkload iof icourts iand igive ijustice ito iall isocial
iclasses. iIt iis iof igreat iassistance ito ithe iunderprivileged iand ishould ibe
iconsulted iin iorder ito iresolve ilegal iissues ior idisputes iin ia itimely,
iequitable, iand iless iexpensive imanner.
57
P a g e i| i58
1
M.K. iGandhi, i“An iAutobiography”, i(1959), ip.97; iand iAppendix iII iof
iGandhiji‟s iThoughts ion ithe iLaw iand ithe iLawyers
2
iHolland: iJurisprudence, i(13th ied), ip.21.
3
iLlyod: iintroduction ito iJurisprudence, ip.42.
4
iLaxmi iKant iGaur iJoint iRegistrar iRules) iHigh iCourt iof iDelhi, i“Why iI
iHate iAlternative‟ iin iAlternative iDispute iResolution”
ihttps://delhicourts.nic.in/ddcsaket/images/Why_I_Hat1.pdf i(last ivisited ion i05-
01-2021).
5
iConjoint ireading iof iArticle i14, i21, i22 i(1) iand i39A iof ithe iConstitution iof
iIndia
6
iSection i12A iof ithe iIndian iCommercial iCourts, iCommercial iDivision iand
iCommercial iAppellate iDivision iof iHigh iCourts iAct, i2015
7
iA. iAhmed iPasha iAnd iAnr. iVs iC. iGulnaz iJabeen ireported iin iAIR i2001
iKant i412
9 i
Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative iResolution”,
iFebruary i8, i2017https://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-concept-of-alternative-
dispute-resolution/ i(last iaccessed ion i18/10/2023).
10
ihttps://www.slideshare.net/Dharmikpatel7992/adr-final-project-24274533(last
ivisited ion iOctober i18, i2023)
11 i
Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative iResolution”,
iFebruary i8, i2017https://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-concept-of-alternative-
dispute-resolution/ i(last iaccessed ion i18/10/2023).
12
Sharyn iRoach iAnleau i& iWilfred iPrest, iLitigation: iPast iand iPresent, i2004,
iUniversity iof iNSW iPress iLtd, iSydney, ip.1
13
iSh. iAbdul iSaliq iKhan ivs iShri. iNahid iKhan i& iOrs., idate i25 iFebruary,
i2011, iby iDelhi iHigh iCourt i
14&15
iThe iCivil iProcedure iADR iand iMediation iRules, i2006 iRule i4 i(Bombay
iHigh iCourt).
16 i
Durga iDas iBasu, iShorter iConstitution iof iIndia, iLexis iNexis, iButterworths,
iWadhwa, i14th iedn., i2009
17
iSection i89 iof ithe iCivil iProcedure iCode i[Amendment iJuly i2002]
18
iAmbalal iSarabhai iEnterprises iLtd. iv. iK.S. iInfraspace iLLP i2019 iSCC
iOnline iSC i1311
58
P a g e i| i59
19 i
Ambalal iSarabhai iEnterprises iLtd. iv. iK.S. iInfraspace iLLP i2019 iSCC
iOnline iSC i1311
59
P a g e i| i60
60
P a g e i| i61
A. Primary iSources
1. The iLegal iServices iAuthorities iAct, i1987
2. The iArbitration iand iConciliation iAct, i1996 i(as iamended iby ithe
iAct iof i2019 iand i2020)
3. iCode iof iCivil iProcedure, i1908
4. iSupreme iCourt iLegal iServices iCommittee iRegulations, i1996
5. iThe iCivil iProcedure iADR iand iMediation i(Bombay iHigh iCourt)
iRules, i2006.
6. Indian iCommercial iCourts, iCommercial iDivision iand iCommercial
iAppellate iDivision iof iHigh iCourts iAct, i2015
7. Abul iHassan iAnd iNational iLegal ivs iDelhi iVidyut iBoard i&
iOther, iAIR i1999 iDelhi i88
8. Tata iAIG iGeneral iInsurance iCo. iVS. iMrs.Bandana iDevi, iW.P.(S)
iNo. i2557 iof i i2008
9. Urmila iMasomat ivs iThe iState iof iBihar, iCriminal iWrit iPetition
iNo.1105 iof i2015
10. Punjab iNational iBank ivs iLaxmichand iRai iAnd iOrs. iAIR i2000
iMP i301, iMadhya iPradesh iHigh iCourt
11. Tulshiram iNivrutthi iShendage i& iOthers ivs iTLSA iMalshiras i&
iOthers iWP iNo. i8891 iof i2012;
12. Municipal iCouncil, iTonk ivs iServe iSeva iSansthan iTonk iAnd
iOrs., iAIR i2004 iRaj i96, iRajasthan iHigh iCourt
13. State iBank iof iIndia ivs iState iOf iJharkhand i& iAnr. ion i9 iApril,
i2009, iW.P.(C) iNo. i1449 iof i2008, iJharkhand iHigh iCourt
14. iState iof iMaharashtra iVs. iSukhdev iSingh iand ianother, i(1992) i3
iSCC i700: iAIR i1992 iSC i2100: i1992 iCri iLJ i3454
B. Secondary iSources
1. Books
- Durga iDas iBasu, iShorter iConstitution iof iIndia, iLexis iNexis,
iButterworths,Wadhwa, i14th iedn., i2009
61
P a g e i| i62
2. Articles
- Alternative‟ iin i“Alternative iDispute iResolution”
ihttps://delhicourts.nic.in/ddcsaket/images/Why_I_Hat1.pdf i(last
ivisited ion i05-01-2021).
- Anuj iKumar, i“Learn iLaw: iThe iConcept iof iAlternative
iResolution”, iFebruary i8, i2017 ihttps://legaldesire.com/learn-law-the-
concept-of-alternative-disputeresolution/ i(last iaccessed ion
i18/01/2021).
- Justice iSB iSinha, iFormar iJudge iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia,
i“Alternative
- Dispute iResolution imechanism i& ieffective iimplementation”
ihttps://www. iscribd.com/doc/275443617/Alternative-Dispute-
Resolution-Hon-Ble-Mrjustice- iS-B-Sinha-Former-Judge-Supreme-
Court-of-India i(last ivisited ion i06-01-2021).
- Anurag iK iAgrawal, i“Role iof iAlternative iDispute iResolution
iMethods iin iDevelopment iof iSociety, iIndian iInstitute iof
iManagement iAhmadabad iWP ino. i2005-11-1 iNovember-2005”
ihttps://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/wp i01913.html i(last ivisited ion
i25.12.2020).
62
P a g e i| i63
3. Reports
- The iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia, i“Indian iJudiciary: iAnnual iReport
i2018-19”p.80, i81,83, i129.
- National iJudicial iAcademy i“Intern's iReport ion iconcluded
iprogrammed i2015- i2016” iby iMr. iAishwarya iNigam i(04-01-
2016).pdf i(nja.nic.in) i(last ivisited ion iJanuary i10, i2021).
- Law icommission iof iIndia, i76th iReport iof i1978.
- Irish iReport ion iADR: iMediation iand iConciliation iLRC98-2010.
- Report iof iMediation iMonitoring iCommittee i& iAction iPlan i2010-
2011.
- Nyaya iDeep', ithe iofficial inewsletter iof iNALSA
- Supreme iCourt's iofficial imagazine i'COURT iNEWS', iVol-XIV
iIssue ino.2,April-June, i2019
63
P a g e i| i64
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/national-lok-adalat-report/national-lok-
adalat-2020/disposal-of-national-lok-adalat-held-on-08-02-2020-for-
all-types-ofcases i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/settlement-through-mediation-april-2019-
tomarch- i2020, i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/statement-showing-the-numbers-of-
personsbenefitted- ithrough-legal-services-and-advice-held-by-state-
legal-servicesauthorities- iunder-legal-services-authorities-act-1987-
sinc-inception-as-on-30-06-2017 i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04,
i2020).
- https://nalsa.gov.in/statistics/awareness-camp-programmes-april-2019-
tomarch-2020 i(last ivisited ion iDecember i04, i2020)
- https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics i(last iaccessed ion iJanuary i18,
i2021)25.
- https://www.slideshare.net/Dharmikpatel7992/adr-final-project-
24274533 i(lastly ivisited ion iJanuary i18, i2021)
- https://thelawbrigade.com/company- iaw/commercial-courts-act-2015
ianappraisal/#:~:text=The%20Commercial%20Courts%20Act%2C
%20as%20per%20Statement%20of,about%20the%20independent
%20and%20responsive i%20Indian%20legal%20system. i(last ivisited
ion iJanuary i20, i2021
64