INDEX

S.NO. DATE TOPIC PAGE SIGN

NO.
1. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 1-14
RESOLUTION
Introduction 3
Need For ADR 4
ENACTMENT OF ADR 4-6
.SECTION 89
ORDER 10 RULE 1A,1B,1C
Policy Considerations Factored Into 6-9
Judicial Decision Making | A Pro ADR
Trend
. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA
(“Bhatia International”)
. Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey
Construction Company
Information Dissemination Through 9-11
Judges | Creating Awareness & Instilling
Confidence
Case Management & Reference To ADR 11-12
. In Sakri v. Chhanwarlal
. Chhotelal v. Kamala Devi
Conclusion 13
BIBILIOGRAPHY 14

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1. Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No.
6000 of 2010.
2. BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.

3. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105.

4. Chhotelal v. Kamala Devi, AIR 1967 Pat 269.

5. Sakri v. Chhanwarlal, AIR 1975 Raj 134.

6. Sangeetha v. Suresh Kumar, JT 2000(8) SC 521.

7. TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v. UE Development India Private Limited, (2008) 14

SCC 271.

Statutes

1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2
 INTRODUCTION

ADR, or alternative dispute resolution, is the name given to a group of procedures that allow
for quick, amicable settlement of conflicts without going to court. ADR aims to save judicial
resources, reduce backlogs and delays, and give litigants efficient, easily accessible justice.
Adopting ADR techniques has a large number of benefits compared to very few drawbacks,
and the current situation indicates that ADR techniques are imperative in the Indian setting.
In the opening sections of this study, the rationale for the acceptance and spread of ADR
techniques in the Indian setting is briefly discussed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate
and investigate the judiciary's role in advancing various ADR techniques. The exercise aims
to examine the many approaches that the judiciary supports in order to advance alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) systems. Beyond merely referring cases and conflicts of a particular
nature to various channels for resolution, the judiciary supports the advancement of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques. The researcher has made an effort to
succinctly describe the many strategies the judiciary has used to forward the cause in addition
to this main one.

Whether such promotion is normatively desirable is an issue and a question that is beyond the
scope of this paper, and concomitantly therefore debate and analyses over the nature of such
promotion is also beyond the scope of this paper. Some have argued that excessive and
mechanical promotion of such methods in matters of jurisprudential importance must be
avoided as it may adversely impact the interests of the nation and often causes undesirable
ramifications on the social and democratic fabric.1

The diversity of approaches used by the judiciary to advance alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) is only illustrative of the favorable judicial temperament in this area. When addressing
ADR-related matters, the judiciary frequently takes into account a number of policy concerns
in addition to legislative sense. The judiciary has been essential in the development of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the Indian context, often overriding statutory
prescriptions.

1
See, M. Shridhar, The Initiative of the Supreme Court of India in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Study of
Two Cases, 3(2), THE ICFAI JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2004).

3
 NEED FOR ADR

Justice R. C. Lahoti thought that there were some intrinsic flaws and shortcomings in the
Indian legal system, and that these shortcomings created a situation where it became
necessary to use practical strategies to fortify the institutional procedures. The former Chief
Justice made this assertion while underlining the value of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) processes, which are helpful in settling and resolving conflicts and help many litigants
save time, energy, and resources.2

The incapacity of the Indian legal system to provide justice in a timely manner is one of the
main signs of its failure. Effective ADR procedures must be in place because to the massive
backlog of cases and the corresponding extreme delay. 3 ADR methods are not only quicker
but are also significantly more informal, and therefore more user friendly than courts. 4. In
addition, the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques reduces the amount of
work that must be done by the nation's overworked and understaffed courts while also giving
disputing parties access to more affordable and efficient legal delivery systems.5

ENACTMENT OF ADR
1. The Malimath Committee Along With The 129th Report Of The Law Commission
Proposed The Idea Of Conciliation As A Technique Of ADR
2. The Intention Behind It Was To Make The Public Aware Of Opinions Available To
Them From Resolving Their Disputes By Utilising The Mode Of ADR Accordingly It
Let To The Enactment Of Section 89 Of The CPC.
3. Section 89 Of The CPC Was Enacted Through The CPC Amendment Act 1999 And
Become Effective From 1st July2002.
2
Y. F. Jayakumar, Conciliation and Family Dispute Resolution in Indian Legal System, 4(1), THE ICFAI
JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2005). See, R. C. Lahoti, Strengthening of the Judicial
System My Priority, THE HINDU, 25, (Hyderabad edn., May 29, 2004).
3
G. Singh, Mediation as a Dispute Settlement Mechanism in India, 5(1), THE ICFAI JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2006). See also, Jayakumar, supra note 2.
4
S. B. Sinha, ADR and Access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives, TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY,
available at http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/article/ADR-%20SBSinha.pdf, (Last visited on May 5,
2014).
5
Id.

4
 4. Thus, With The Motive Of Bringing A Significant Reduction In The Number Of
Pending Cases, Section 89 Of The CPC Was Amended It Provides The Machinery
And Procedure For Selecting The Disputes Of Civil Litigation Through Different
Mechanism Of ADR.

SECTION 89 (1) Where It Appears To The Court That There Exist Elements Of A
Settlement Which May Be Acceptable To The Parties, The Court Shall Formulate The Terms
Of Settlement And Give Them To The Parties For Their Observations And After Receiving
The Observation Of The Parties, The Court May Reformulate The Terms Of A Possible
Settlement And Refer The Same For

(A) Arbitration;

(B) Conciliation

(C) Judicial Settlement Including Settlement Through Lok Adalat; Or

(D) Mediation.

(2) Where A Dispute Had Been Referred-

(A) For Arbitration Or Conciliation, The Provisions Of The Arbitration And Conciliation
Act, 1996 Shall Apply As If The Proceedings For Arbitration Or Conciliation Were Referred
For Settlement Under The Provisions Of That Act.

(B) To Lok Adalat, The Court Shall Refer The Same To The Lok Adalat In Accordance With
The Provisions Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 20 Of The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987
And All Other Provisions Of That Act Shall Apply In Respect Of The Dispute So Referred
To The Lok Adalat;

(C) For Judicial Settlement, The Court Shall Refer The Same To A Suitable Institution Or
Person And Such Institution Or Person Shall Be Deemed To Be A Lok Adalat And All The
Provisions Of The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 Shall Apply As If The Dispute Were
Referred To A Lok Adalat Under The Provisions Of That Act;

(D) For Mediation, The Court Shall Affect A Compromise Between The Parties And Shall
Follow Such Procedure As May Be Prescribed.]

5
ORDER X

Examination Of Parties By The Court

Rule 1A. Direction Of The Court To Opt For Any One Mode Of Alternative Dispute
Resolution.—After Recording The Admissions And Denials, The Court Shall Direct The
Parties To The Suit To Opt Either Mode Of The Settlement Outside The Court As Specified
In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 89. On The Option Of The Parties, The Court Shall Fix The
Date Of Appearance Before Such Forum Or Authority As May Be Opted By The Parties.

Rule 1B. Appearance Before The Conciliatory Forum Or Authority.—Where A Suit Is

Referred Under Rule 1A, The Parties Shall Appear Before Such Forum Or Authority For
Conciliation Of The Suit.

Rule 1C. Appearance Before The Court Consequent To The Failure Of Efforts Of
Conciliation.—Where A Suit Is Referred Under Rule 1A, And The Presiding Officer Of
Conciliation Forum Or Authority Is Satisfied That It Would Not Be Proper In The Interest Of
Justice To Proceed With The Matter Further, Then, It Shall Refer The Matter Again To The
Court And Direct The Parties To Appear Before The Court On The Date Fixed By It.]

Read With

Section 96 (3)

Order 14 Rule 1 And Sub Rule 5

Order 23 Rule 3

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FACTORED INTO JUDICIAL

DECISION MAKING | A PRO ADR TREND

The judiciary, on various occasions has helped bolster the ADR cause through indirect
methods. An example of these methods is the policy considerations which the judiciary uses
as a guiding tool in decision making. On certain crucial issues, it can be reasonably inferred,
that the judiciary renders decisions which encourage and promote ADR methods at a policy
level itself. Certain examples would help illustrate and substantiate the claim.

6
In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA (“Bhatia International”),6 among other things,
the Supreme Court laid down that the Indian judiciary was empowered to order interim
measures even in arbitrations which were seated in foreign countries. Quite obviously, the
decision was met with substantial criticism, primarily because it vehemently went against the
freedom of international arbitration from domestic Indian judicial involvement. In response to
this set of circumstances, with a view to rectify the reputation of being an “arbitration-
unfriendly” jurisdiction, the Supreme Court later adopted a pro-arbitration policy and
overruled Bhatia International7 by the landmark decision rendered in BALCO v. Kaiser
Aluminium (“BALCO”).8

By overruling Bhatia International9 in BALCO10 the Supreme Court clarified and explained
that territoriality was the primary premise underlying the operation of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act11 and that therefore Indian courts would be precluded from asserting
jurisdiction, even in the form of interim relief orders, in offshore and international
arbitrations. Further, the Supreme Court held the Indian courts would not possess jurisdiction
to intervene in or modify, or set aside awards of arbitration tribunals in respect of arbitrations
seated outside India.12 By doing so the Supreme Court has unequivocally indicated the pro-
arbitration approach that is going to characterise judicial temperament in this regard. 13

It is amply evident that the decision in BALCO14 was aimed at remedying the inconveniences
that were caused by preceding decisions like Bhatia International.15 A decision guided by
policy considerations, the Supreme Court’s verdict in BALCO16 was aimed at promoting ADR
methods and simultaneously alleviating the concerns of the international business and legal
communities alike in respect of Indian judicial interference in international arbitration

6
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105.
7
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105.
8
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005. See, P. Nair, On the road to becoming
arbitration friendly: The decision of the Indian Supreme Court in BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, 1(1), LCIA
INDIA NEWS, (2012).
9
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105.
10
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
11
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
12
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
13
Nair, supra note 8.
14
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
15
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105.
16
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.

7
proceedings. No doubt BALCO17 does not address all the challenges seen with reference to
arbitration - for example, BALCO18 does not address the rule laid down that in the Indian
context that Indian parties cannot contract out of Indian substantive law even if the contract
provides for a foreign arbitration seat.19 But that notwithstanding, BALCO20 certainly has been
a great start in the pro-arbitration direction.21

The landmark decision in Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction

Company22 (“Afcons”) serves as yet another example of the judiciary rendering decisions
aimed at promoting the ADR movement. The 2010 Supreme Court decision considered
certain rigorously contested issues revolving around the requirement of consent among
parties as a pre-requisite for reference to arbitration under Section 89 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.23 While addressing this issue and ruling that prior consent is necessary in the
context of reference to arbitration but not in cases of reference to other ADR mechanisms, the
Supreme Court simultaneously observed that Section 89 of the Code,24 a significant provision
in the context of ADR, was inconveniently drafted. The drafting of the provision, in the
opinion of the apex court required substantial correction.25

Section 89,26 clumsily drafted, mixes up definitions of various ADR mechanisms, and
expressly imposes an obligation upon the courts that not only tremendously overburdens the
courts, but also defeats the very purpose of the provision in question. 27 Section 8928 requires
judges of trial courts, in cases wherein the judge believes that there may be a chance that the
parties could arrive at a settlement, to formulate terms of such settlement and forward these
terms to the parties for consideration and observation. After such consideration and making
of observations, the parties are to return the formulated settlement terms to the judge for

17
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
18
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
19
TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v. UE Development India Private Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 271.
20
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
21
A. Chugh, The Bharat Aluminium Case: The Indian Supreme Court Ushers in New Era, KLUWER
ARBITRATION BLOG, available at http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/09/26/the-bharat-aluminium-case-
the-indian-supreme-court-ushers-in-a-new-era/, (Last visited on May 5, 2014). See also, Nair, supra note 8.
22
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
23
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
24
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
25
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
26
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
27
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
28
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

8
further reconsideration, and then the judge is to reframe these settlement terms before
referring the dispute to ADR methods mentioned in the provision.29

Clearly, the provision imposes an unnecessary, redundant and cyclic obligation on the courts
which defeats the very purpose of the provision. Invoking doctrines of purposive
interpretation and other canons of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court observed that
the only practicable way to correct the deficiencies and absurdities of Section 89 30 was to
comprehensively reformulate the provision. The Court did away with the inconvenient and
redundant requirement of framing and reframing possible terms of settlement. The Supreme
Court redefined the various ADR methods, outlined the procedure to be adopted in cases
which fell under Section 8931 and provided numerous exhaustive guidelines in this regard.32

As was the case in the BALCO33 judgement, the Afcons34 decision is another such decision
which paves the way for a more ADR friendly legal environment and statutory framework.
The judiciary has systematically, with policy based objectives in mind, rendered decisions
which clear several hurdles and statutory impediments which have and may come in the way
of the growth of the ADR movement, and as such thereby has been bolstering and promoting
the cause through rendering such decisions and creating a favourable legal climate.

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION THROUGH JUDGES |

CREATING AWARENESS & INSTILLING CONFIDENCE

Judges have used alternate channels to promote the cause of ADR methods. While
emphasizing the issues plaguing the judiciary in the form of enormous backlog and pendency,
judges have, through formal and informal channels promoted ADR mechanisms. Justice
Sinha of the Supreme Court in his paper on ADR methods encouraged the use of such
methods citing the various advantages that such methods offer, including that of delivering
speedy and effective justice to litigants and simultaneously reducing court case burden. In his
paper, the Judge also explained that ADR methods can be best implemented if there was an

29
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
30
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
31
Sec. 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
32
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
33
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005.
34
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.

9
active and mandatory reference of cases to such methods by the judiciary, and effective case
management by judges.35

Justice Khanwilkar of the Bombay High Court in his paper on ADR methods outlines the
importance and benefits of ADR methods and proposes that in order to further the benefits
provided by such methods of dispute resolution it is imperative that in addition to providing
speedy justice through these channels, efforts are taken to ensure that the quality of justice is
also remains uncompromised. Further, to promote ADR methods, the Bombay High Court
has effected a unique form of case management. So not only does the High Court insist and
promote ADR methods by referencing cases to such mechanisms, but it also assures the
parties that in the event settlement by these ADR methods fails for any reason the case will
immediately be taken up for hearing by the court.36

Justice Chandrachud of the Bombay High Court has formulated certain strategies aimed and
developing the efficacy of mediation as an ADR tool and presented these strategies publicly
at conferences37 with a view to have such information percolate through various channels and
consequently enhance the quality, efficacy, and efficiency of mediation practice. Other
informal channels have also been utilised by senior members of the judiciary to promote the
cause of ADR.

The consequence of such information dissemination is that ADR mechanisms now enjoy the
endorsement of the judiciary and the judiciary regularly refers matters for resolution to such
channels. It is imperative that such ADR methods enjoy judicial backing in order to promote
confidence in such a system.38 Further, courts must take efforts to see to it that recourse is
taken to these ADR methods before litigation is invoked, specifically, negotiation and
conciliation before arbitration.39 A strenuous challenge that ADR methods face is the lack of
awareness and confidence in such systems. This lack of awareness and confidence can be
remedied by the judiciary’s consistent endorsement and encouragement.40

35
Sinha, supra note 4.
36
A. M. Khanwilkar, Need to Revitalise ADR Mechanism, 4(3), NYAYADEEP, (2005).
37
D. Y. Chandrachud, Mediation – Realizing the Potential and Designing Implementation Strategies, presented
at, Law Commission of India International Conference on ADR and Case Management, (New Delhi, May 3 to
May 4, 2003).
38
Singh, supra note 3.
39
Singh, supra note 3. See also, F. S. Nariman, Arbitration and ADR in India, in P. C. Rao and W. Sheffield,
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT WORKS, (1st edn., 1997).
40
Id.

10
 CASE MANAGEMENT & REFERENCE TO ADR

A long list of statutory provisions incorporated by the legislature direct the courts, and
imposes a duty on the courts to take an effort towards resolving a dispute before them by
reference to ADR mechanism.41 Notwithstanding such legislative efforts, the judiciary has
suo moto gone ahead and laid down several guidelines promoting the use of such ADR
methods for dispute resolution.

The Supreme Court in the Afcons42 decision laid down certain guidelines which would help
courts determine broad categories of disputes which could be referred to ADR methods for
resolution before trial. These include disputes which are related to trade and commerce,
money disputes, disputes of specific performance, disputes between builders and customers,
bankers and customers, cases pertaining to tortious liability, disputes between partners,
disputes relating to family law and so on.43

The judiciary in consonance with legislative provisions and intent makes a significant and
sincere effort to refer matters that come before it to ADR mechanisms for resolution. As has
been seen in the Bombay High Court, the court actively promotes these methods by assuring
parties that in the event of failure of such ADR methods to resolve the dispute, the matter will
immediately be taken up for hearing by the court.44

Several statutory provisions urge to courts to endeavour to have the dispute before it resolved
through ADR mechanisms.45 In several cases, especially in matters pertaining to family law,
the judiciary has actively promoted the ADR mechanisms by referring these matters to be
resolved through such channels. In Sangeetha v. Suresh Kumar46 in a divorce and
maintenance dispute between a man and wife, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that

there was a possibility that the dispute could be resolved through means of reconciliation, and
accordingly referred the matter to conciliation and adjourned the proceedings.47

41
See, Jayakumar, supra note 2.
42
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
43
Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company, Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2010.
44
Khanwilkar, supra note 36.
45
See, Jayakumar, supra note 2.
46
Sangeetha v. Suresh Kumar, JT 2000(8) SC 521.
47
Sangeetha v. Suresh Kumar, JT 2000(8) SC 521. See, Jayakumar, supra note 2.

11
In Sakri v. Chhanwarlal48 the Rajasthan High Court remarked that the courts should
endeavour to bring about conciliation at the beginning of the proceedings, but in the event
that such efforts are not made at the beginning of proceedings, such efforts should be made
before granting relief. The efforts must be a reasonable human effort and should be made in
every case.49 Similarly, the Patna High Court in Chhotelal v. Kamala Devi50 observed that
before usual proceedings, the courts should endeavour to bring about conciliation and that
such effort must be made even if the advocates for the parties submit that such reconciliation
is not possible.51

The judiciary’s endorsement of such ADR methods is of tremendous significance and has
serious implications on the success of such methods. A significant impetus given to the ADR
movement by the judiciary was the 1984 experiment conducted by the Himachal Pradesh
High Court. Facing rising arrears in subordinate courts, the High Court implemented a project
which aimed at disposal of pending cases by mandating compulsory pre-trial conciliation in
new cases being brought before the courts. The experiment was on the lines of a similar
experiment conducted in Canada and was tremendously successful and commended, 52 and it
was recommended that other states follow the Himachal Project in their courts as well. 53

48
Sakri v. Chhanwarlal, AIR 1975 Raj 134.
49
Sakri v. Chhanwarlal, AIR 1975 Raj 134. See, Jayakumar, supra note 2.
50
Chhotelal v. Kamala Devi, AIR 1967 Pat 269.
51
Chhotelal v. Kamala Devi, AIR 1967 Pat 269. See, Jayakumar, supra note 2.
52
Singh, supra note 3. The experiment was commended in the Law Commission of India 77 th and 13th Reports;
the Conference of Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices in their resolution in December, 1993; and the Calcutta
Resolution of the Law Ministers and Law Secretaries Meeting in 1994.
53
Singh, supra note 3.

12
 CONCLUSION

The judiciary has a multifaceted role in fostering alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This
article has looked at and analyzed the many strategies the judiciary has used to promote
alternative dispute resolution. The enormous backlog and pendency of cases make it clear
that ADR techniques must be widely used. Establishing strong and long-lasting ADR
processes is crucial for easing the load on the legal system and ensuring prompt, effective,
and efficient justice. On several occasions certain decisions rendered by the judiciary in the
context of ADR seem to be guided by policy considerations and seem to aimed at promoting
ADR at a policy level. The judiciary has repeatedly ironed out any impediments that may
come in the way of ADR movement. Whether in the international context, or domestic, the
judiciary seems to be handing out decisions which overcome legal hurdles, statutory in
character or otherwise. Some of these decisions even have larger implications in the context
of international commerce and business.

ADR has also been promoted by the courts through other, largely epistemic avenues.
Prominent members of the judiciary have written numerous papers and articles outlining the
benefits of these kinds of dispute settlement techniques. These articles also frequently focus
on ways to increase the effectiveness of these dispute resolution techniques. Such court
support not only raises public awareness of these conflict resolution techniques but also
fosters public confidence in them. In an effort to encourage the resolution of conflicts that
come before the courts through alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the judiciary has
established through a number of decisions that cases must be regularly referred to ADR
methods. In extreme instances, the courts have even guaranteed litigants that they will bring
up the issue right away if these processes fail. It is abundantly clear that the judiciary
generally views alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as beneficial and makes several efforts
to advance ADR.

13
 BIBILIOGRAPHY
References

1. A. Chugh, The Bharat Aluminium Case: The Indian Supreme Court Ushers in New Era,
KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG, available at
http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/09/26/the-bharat-aluminium-case-the-indian-
supreme-court-ushers-in-a-new-era/, (Last visited on May 5, 2014).

2. A. M. Khanwilkar, Need to Revitalise ADR Mechanism, 4(3), NYAYADEEP, (2005).

3. D. Y. Chandrachud, Mediation – Realizing the Potential and Designing Implementation

Strategies, presented at, Law Commission of India International Conference on ADR and Case
Management, (New Delhi, May 3 to May 4, 2003).

4. F. S. Nariman, Arbitration and ADR in India, in P. C. Rao and W. Sheffield, ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE RESOLUTION: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT WORKS, (1st edn., 1997).

5. G. Singh, Mediation as a Dispute Settlement Mechanism in India, 5(1), THE ICFAI JOURNAL
OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2006).

6. M. Shridhar, The Initiative of the Supreme Court of India in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A
Study of Two Cases, 3(2), THE ICFAI JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2004).

7. P. Nair, On the road to becoming arbitration friendly: The decision of the Indian Supreme
Court in BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium, 1(1), LCIA INDIA NEWS, (2012).

8. R. C. Lahoti, Strengthening of the Judicial System My Priority, THE HINDU, 25, (Hyderabad
edn., May 29, 2004).

9. S. B. Sinha, ADR and Access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives, TAMIL NADU STATE
JUDICIAL ACADEMY, available at http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/article/ADR-
%20SBSinha.pdf, (Last visited on May 5, 2014).

10. Y. F. Jayakumar, Conciliation and Family Dispute Resolution in Indian Legal System, 4(1),
THE ICFAI JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2005).

14