ADR- An worldview
Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR has been a popular method to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Canada’s experience with ADR techniques began to undergo a “cultural revolution.”
During this time, ADR grew with the need for an alternative and the advised method to dispute resolution. That is common because the traditional court processes were in recognition.
Over the next few decades, ADR grew in popularity, and it is today universally accepting as a legitimate and successful method of dispute resolution.
“Meaningful access to justice is now the greatest obstacle to the rule of law in Canada today,” the Supreme Court of Canada remarks in Hryniak v Mauldin in 2014. Our justice system’s balance of procedure and access must reflect modern realities and accept that new adjudication models can be fair and just.”
However, there have been several experiments with ADR techniques across the provinces in the decades leading up to this proclamation.
The Ministry of Justice has released a report analyzing six pilot projects involving alternative dispute resolution.
Read Also – Supreme Court struck down the pre-deposit clauses to invoke Arbitration
The report concludes that it is premature to introduce ADR into the following:
Conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement, and Lok Adalat settlement are the five types of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedures been in recognition by Indian law. There is one adjudicatory process (arbitration) and four non-adjudicatory processes (conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement, and Lok Adalat settlement). The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 governs arbitration and conciliation, whereas the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 governs the two other ADR processes of Lok Adalat settlement and mediation. The court will follow whatever method is in need in the event of a judicial settlement, which is not in authority by any statute.
(Mangayarkarasi Apparels Pvt. Limited vs Sundaram Finance Ltd., 30 April 2002, Pattullo’s (2003 113 CompCas 487 Mad, (2002) 2 MLJ 444) (ii) Arbitration Arbitration is in governance by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Act creates mandatory arbitration provisions.
The general rule in arbitrations is that the validity of the final award is at the discretion of the arbitrators. However, in an arbitration instituted under
“Natural justice isn’t a wild horse, a hidden land mine, or a panacea for all judicial ills.
There is no breach of natural justice which is in a claim if the decision-maker shows some fairness to the person who has been seen guilty, this form, features, and fundamentals of such necessary procedural propriety being conditional by the facts and circumstances of each of the instance.
Exasperating (i.e. annoying) can be the unnatural expansion of natural justice without regard for administrative reality and other considerations in a given situation.
We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction.
No man will be hit below the belt because it is the conscience of the matter”
(Best Practices in International Arbitration”, ASA Swiss Arbitration Association, Conference of January 27, 2006, in Zurich, Edited by Markus Wirth)
Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, establishes conciliation as a specialized vehicle for conflict resolution, and Section 61 of that Act applies to disputes arising out of a legal relationship as well as proceedings connected to that connection.
Conciliation proceedings are in lieu under Section 62 of the Act when one party sends the other a written invitation to conciliate.
It begins when the opposite party, in writing, accepts such an invitation.
Section 64 governs the appointment of a conciliator and Section 66 stipulates that the conciliator is “not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
Basically, Under the Indian Arbitration Act, there is no prohibition against a conciliator being a member of a bar. In examining the relationship of the same
Section 73 talks about a settlement agreement between the parties and it has some validity and effect as an “arbitral award on mutual terms on the substance of the dispute given by an arbitral tribunal under Section 30” under Section 74 of the Act.
The conciliation proceedings are there in Section 76.
(Konkan Railway Corporation versus M/S. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd, 30 January 2002; SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg Ltd, (2005) 8 SCC 618) In the case of Bombay Stock Exchange v Bombay Stock Investment Co. Ltd, AIR 1953 SC 278, the appointment of a conciliator was suggestive by them.
An arbitrator’s and an expert’s roles are distinct.
The decision of facts or values is dependent on the field and competence of the person.
Without taking any evidence or hearing the parties, he is not, prima facie, an arbitrator.
When a person is appointed to hear the parties and their evidence and make a judicial decision, he is therefore given the designation of an arbitrator.
The most important difference between an arbitrator and an expert is that an expert does not have to function in a judicial capacity.
The speaker or expert can use his competence.
The decision about the questions as he is not obliged to give each side a chance to present their case and deal with extraneous information.
(Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel and Others, 11 July 1985, 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131; Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee, 1997 2 SCC 256)
Techniques of alternative dispute resolution are non-judicial.
Parties under the law can practically utilize the agreement between them.
With a high percentage of resolution going, there has been a great success in a variety of domains which include civil, commercial, industrial, and familial disputes.
These methods have proven to be quite effective in a wide spectrum of commercial issues. Insurance covers: banking; contract performance and interpretation; construction contracts; IPR (Intellectual Property Rights); joint ventures; differences or disputes in partnerships; personal injuries; product liability; professional liability; real estate; and securities.
Insurance coverage is an important subject related to the latest dispute over U.S. insurance law.
Introduction of Bills also took place.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Focus on Legal Foundations
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 established the legal foundation for India’s arbitration and conciliation proceedings. The arbitrators decide the outcome, the process of ‘arbitration’ is adjudicative. The ability to determine is given to the arbitrator. The arbitrator’s ruling is final and binding. This technique frequently necessitates substantial research.
Read Also – Arbitration and Conciliation – Two sides of the same coin, yet different.
An arbitrator always considers the facts and evidence before he/she makes a decision. The parties present their case and give sworn testimony. Arbitration is a formal process.
The attorneys have control over which parties participate.
In this process, an evidentiary hearing takes place.
There is no way to communicate privately with the arbitrator.
Based on the very facts, evidence, the legislation which was given, the decision will be made in the form of an award. Arbitration costs more than mediation, but it is very less expensive than traditional litigation.
Although it is a private process between the arbitrator and the disputants because rulings are sometimes made public.
As a result, arbitrator referred is an informal procedure that involves a decision-maker impasse.
Agreements can be entered into regarding arbitration if quieting orders are communicated to the long-term buyer or seller. An agreement to arbitrate.