Mediation and Conciliation: Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in India

Chapter 1: Introduction to Mediation and Conciliation

Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Indian legal system has witnessed a paradigm shift in recent decades with the increasing recognition and adoption of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation and conciliation have emerged as effective alternatives to the traditional adversarial approach of litigation, offering parties a more flexible, cost-effective, and time-efficient means of resolving disputes. Unlike court proceedings and arbitration, which follow a strictly adversarial model where parties present opposing arguments before a decision-maker, mediation and conciliation emphasize collaborative problem-solving and mutual agreement.

The growing popularity of these mechanisms stems from multiple factors. The Indian judiciary faces an enormous burden with millions of pending cases, leading to prolonged delays in justice delivery. According to judicial statistics, cases often take years or even decades to reach final resolution through the traditional court system. This backlog has necessitated the development and promotion of alternative avenues for dispute resolution that can reduce the burden on courts while providing parties with speedier and more satisfactory outcomes.

Furthermore, the nature of modern commercial disputes, family matters, and community conflicts often benefits from a less confrontational approach. Traditional litigation can be adversarial and polarizing, sometimes destroying relationships that parties may wish to preserve. Mediation and conciliation allow for creative solutions that address the underlying interests of all parties rather than simply determining legal rights and obligations. These processes also offer confidentiality, which is particularly valuable in commercial disputes where parties may wish to protect sensitive business information or maintain their reputation.

Distinction Between Mediation and Conciliation

While the terms mediation and conciliation are sometimes used interchangeably in India, legal practitioners and scholars recognize important distinctions between these two forms of alternative dispute resolution. Understanding these differences is crucial for parties seeking to choose the most appropriate mechanism for their particular dispute.

The Mediator’s Role

A mediator functions primarily as a facilitator who assists parties in communicating effectively and exploring their interests and options. The mediator does not offer specific solutions or make proposals for settlement terms. Instead, the mediator creates an environment conducive to negotiation by helping parties identify common ground, understand each other’s perspectives, and generate their own creative solutions. The mediator may ask probing questions, reframe issues, and help parties evaluate various options, but the responsibility for reaching agreement remains entirely with the parties themselves.

The mediation process is characterized by party autonomy. Parties control both the process and the outcome, and the mediator’s role is strictly neutral and non-directive. This approach recognizes that parties are best positioned to understand their own needs and interests, and that solutions developed by the parties themselves are more likely to be implemented and sustained over time. The mediator may conduct joint sessions where all parties meet together, as well as private caucuses with individual parties to explore sensitive issues or test settlement possibilities confidentially.

The Conciliator’s Role

In contrast, a conciliator takes a more active and interventionist approach to helping parties resolve their dispute. While still maintaining impartiality, the conciliator is empowered to make proposals for settlement and suggest specific terms that might form the basis of an agreement. The conciliator evaluates the merits of each party’s position, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of their cases, and may express views on what would constitute a fair and reasonable settlement.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 explicitly authorizes conciliators to formulate settlement proposals. Section 67 of the Act provides that the conciliator shall assist the parties in an independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. The conciliator may conduct the proceedings in such manner as the conciliator considers appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the wishes the parties may express, and the need for a speedy settlement of the dispute.[1]

However, it is important to note that despite this more interventionist role, the conciliator still lacks any authority to impose terms on the parties or to make binding decisions. The conciliator’s proposals are merely suggestions that parties remain free to accept or reject. If parties do not agree with the conciliator’s proposed terms, they can continue negotiations or terminate the conciliation process entirely. This distinguishes conciliation from arbitration, where the arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties.

Legislative Framework Governing Conciliation

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Conciliation in India is governed by a detailed statutory framework set out in Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This legislation, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic and international arbitration and to define the law relating to conciliation, provides a complete code for the conduct of conciliation proceedings. The Act was modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, reflecting India’s commitment to aligning its alternative dispute resolution framework with international best practices.

Part III of the Act, spanning Sections 61 to 81, addresses various aspects of the conciliation process. These provisions cover the commencement of conciliation proceedings, the appointment and number of conciliators, the submission of statements to the conciliator, the conduct of proceedings, communication between conciliators and parties, disclosure requirements, confidentiality obligations, the termination of proceedings, and the status and enforcement of settlement agreements.

Commencement and Appointment of Conciliators

Under Section 62 of the Act, conciliation proceedings commence when a party sends a written invitation to the other party to conciliate, which must briefly identify the subject of the dispute. The invitation is accepted when the other party communicates acceptance, and if no acceptance is received within thirty days or such other period specified in the invitation, the invitation is deemed rejected. This provision establishes a clear framework for initiating conciliation while respecting party autonomy in deciding whether to participate in the process.

Section 64 addresses the appointment of conciliators, providing that there shall be one conciliator unless the parties agree that there shall be two or three conciliators. If there is more than one conciliator, they ought, as a general rule, to act jointly. The section also establishes procedures for appointing conciliators, including provisions for situations where parties cannot agree on the appointment or where an appointed conciliator needs to be replaced.

Conduct of Conciliation Proceedings

Section 67 grants conciliators broad discretion in conducting proceedings, stating that the conciliator shall assist the parties in an independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. The conciliator is guided by principles of objectivity, fairness, and justice, giving consideration to the rights and obligations of the parties, the usages of trade concerned, and the circumstances surrounding the dispute, including any previous business practices between the parties.[1]

The conciliator may conduct the conciliation proceedings in such manner as considered appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the wishes the parties may express, and the need for a speedy settlement. The conciliator may, at any stage of the proceedings, make proposals for settlement. These proposals need not be in writing and need not be accompanied by a statement of reasons. This flexibility allows the conciliator to test various settlement possibilities informally and adjust approaches based on the parties’ responses.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the conciliation process, and the Act contains robust provisions to protect it. Section 75 provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all information relating to conciliation proceedings shall be kept confidential, except where disclosure is required under law or for purposes of implementation or enforcement of a settlement agreement. Neither party can rely on or introduce as evidence in arbitral, judicial, or similar proceedings views expressed or suggestions made by the other party, admissions made by the other party, or proposals made by the conciliator.

The conciliator is also bound by confidentiality and shall not function as an arbitrator or representative or counsel of a party in any arbitral or judicial proceeding in respect of a dispute that is or was the subject matter of the conciliation proceedings. These provisions encourage parties to engage in open and frank discussions during conciliation without fear that their statements or concessions might be used against them if the conciliation fails and the matter proceeds to litigation or arbitration.

Status of Settlement Agreements

When parties reach an agreement through conciliation, Section 73 requires that the settlement agreement be signed by the parties and by the conciliator, who shall authenticate the agreement. A settlement agreement reached through conciliation has the same status and effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 of the Act and is final and binding on the parties. This provision gives conciliated settlements significant legal force, allowing them to be enforced in the same manner as court decrees or arbitral awards.

Mediation in India: Evolution and Current Framework

Development of Court-Annexed Mediation

Unlike conciliation, mediation in India historically lacked specific statutory regulation. However, the practice of mediation has developed significantly through judicial initiatives, court rules, and institutional frameworks. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1999 and 2002 to introduce Section 89, which provides that 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. After receiving the observations of the parties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for various alternative dispute resolution processes including arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or mediation.

The constitutional validity of these amendments and the implementation of Section 89 were examined by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344. In this case, the Court upheld the amendments and recognized the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in reducing the burden on courts and expediting dispute resolution. The Court constituted a committee headed by Justice Jagannadha Rao to formulate model rules for implementing Section 89 and establishing mediation centers.[2]

Following the Salem Advocate Bar Association judgment, various High Courts began developing their own mediation rules and establishing mediation centers. These initiatives have created a network of court-annexed mediation services across India, with trained mediators assisting parties in resolving their disputes before cases proceed to full trial. The Supreme Court also established the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee in 2005 to oversee the implementation of mediation services at the apex court level.

Mediation Centers and Training

The development of court-annexed mediation has been accompanied by efforts to train qualified mediators and establish professional standards for mediation practice. The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee of the Supreme Court developed training programs and curricula for mediators, drawing on international best practices and adapting them to the Indian context. These training programs typically cover mediation theory and techniques, communication skills, cultural sensitivity, ethical considerations, and practical exercises simulating real mediation scenarios.

Many High Courts have established mediation and conciliation centers within court premises, staffed by trained mediators who may be retired judges, senior advocates, or other qualified professionals. These centers provide mediation services free of charge or at nominal cost to parties whose cases are referred by the courts. The success rates of these mediation centers have been encouraging, with many centers reporting settlement rates of fifty to seventy percent for referred cases.

Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation Under the Commercial Courts Act

Background and Legislative Intent

The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 was enacted to provide for the constitution of commercial courts, commercial divisions, and commercial appellate divisions in High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value. The Act was subsequently amended in 2018 by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, which introduced Section 12A mandating pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes.[3]

The introduction of Section 12A represented a significant policy shift, making mediation not merely an option but a mandatory prerequisite for filing commercial suits in most circumstances. The legislative intent behind this amendment was multifaceted. First, Parliament recognized that commercial disputes often involve ongoing business relationships that parties may wish to preserve, making mediation’s collaborative approach particularly appropriate. Second, the amendment aimed to reduce the burden on commercial courts by filtering out cases that could be resolved through mediation before formal litigation commenced. Third, mandatory pre-institution mediation was expected to reduce costs and time for parties by encouraging early settlement before significant litigation expenses were incurred.

Scope and Application of Section 12A

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act provides that a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The section contemplates mediation conducted in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Upon exhaustion of the remedy of pre-institution mediation, if settlement is not reached, the plaintiff is required to file the suit along with a certificate confirming that the remedy of pre-institution mediation has been exhausted and that no settlement could be reached.

The section specifies that the application for pre-institution mediation shall be made to the authority as notified by the State Government, typically an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The mediation process must be completed within a period of three months from the date of making the application. This period may be extended with the consent of the parties by a further period not exceeding two months. If the mediation results in a settlement, the settlement agreement shall have the same status and effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.[3]

Exception for Urgent Interim Relief

A critical exception to the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement exists for cases where the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief. This exception recognizes that in certain circumstances, delay caused by the mediation process could result in irreparable harm to a party’s interests. The statute does not define what constitutes urgent interim relief, leaving this determination to judicial interpretation based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Courts have emphasized that the exception for urgent interim relief should not be used as a device to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement. Parties seeking to invoke this exception must demonstrate genuine urgency and explain why their case requires immediate judicial intervention before mediation can be attempted. Courts have cautioned against accepting merely formulaic claims of urgency and have scrutinized applications carefully to prevent abuse of this exception.

Judicial Interpretation and Enforcement

The mandatory nature of Section 12A was firmly established by the Supreme Court in the case of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1. In this judgment, the Court held that compliance with Section 12A is mandatory and that failure to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation would result in the plaint being liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that the only exception to this requirement is where the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief, and even in such cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate genuine urgency.[4]

Following the Patil Automation judgment, commercial courts across India have strictly enforced the pre-institution mediation requirement. Numerous plaints have been rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A, with courts holding that the mandatory language of the provision leaves no room for discretion. This strict enforcement has significantly increased the utilization of mediation services for commercial disputes and has led to a growing body of settlements reached through pre-institution mediation.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that the requirement of pre-institution mediation applies not only to original plaints but also to counter-claims filed in commercial suits. In subsequent judgments, courts have held that defendants seeking to file counter-claims must also comply with Section 12A by first attempting mediation of their counter-claims before the counter-claims can be entertained by the court.[5]

Enforcement and Legal Effect of Mediated and Conciliated Settlements

Status as Arbitral Awards

Both the conciliation provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the mediation provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provide that settlements reached through these processes shall have the same status and effect as arbitral awards on agreed terms under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This provision is significant because it places mediated and conciliated settlements on the same footing as arbitral awards, which are directly enforceable as court decrees under Section 36 of the Act.

Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that if during arbitral proceedings, the parties settle the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings and, if requested by the parties and not objected to by the tribunal, record the settlement in the form of an arbitral award on agreed terms. Such an award has the same status and effect as any other arbitral award on the substance of the dispute. By granting mediated and conciliated settlements the same status as such awards, the law ensures that parties cannot easily back out of settlements they have voluntarily reached.

Finality and Limited Grounds for Challenge

Arbitral awards can generally be challenged only on limited grounds specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, such as incapacity of parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, violation of natural justice, or conflict with public policy. Since mediated and conciliated settlements have the same status as arbitral awards, they are similarly subject to challenge only on these narrow grounds. This provides settlements with a high degree of finality and prevents parties from reopening disputes based on mere change of mind or dissatisfaction with agreed terms.

However, courts have recognized that settlements reached through mediation or conciliation differ from contested arbitral awards in that they represent the parties’ own agreement rather than an adjudicator’s decision. As such, principles relating to the validity of contracts also apply to settlement agreements. Settlements may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, mistake, or lack of capacity. But absent such vitiating factors, courts will generally uphold and enforce settlements that parties have voluntarily entered into with full knowledge of their rights and obligations.

Execution of Settlement Agreements

The enforceability of mediated and conciliated settlements as arbitral awards means that if a party fails to comply with the terms of a settlement, the other party can execute the settlement as a decree without having to file a fresh suit for enforcement. This streamlined enforcement mechanism is a significant advantage of formal mediation and conciliation processes over informal negotiations or settlements recorded merely as contracts.

Under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitral award is enforceable as a decree of the court. The party seeking enforcement can apply to the court for execution of the award, and the court will proceed to execute it in the same manner as if it were a decree passed by the court itself. This same enforcement mechanism applies to mediated and conciliated settlements that have been recorded as awards, providing parties with an efficient means of securing compliance with settlement terms.

Comparison with Other Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation and Conciliation versus Arbitration

While mediation, conciliation, and arbitration are all forms of alternative dispute resolution, they differ fundamentally in their approach and outcomes. Arbitration is an adjudicatory process where parties submit their dispute to one or more arbitrators who make a binding determination based on evidence and arguments presented. The arbitration process resembles court litigation in many respects, with parties presenting cases, examining witnesses, and submitting documentary evidence. The arbitrator acts as a private judge, evaluating the merits of each party’s position and issuing a reasoned award.

In contrast, mediation and conciliation are consensual processes focused on helping parties reach their own agreement rather than imposing a decision. The mediator or conciliator does not evaluate the merits of the parties’ positions in the same manner as an arbitrator or judge. Instead, these facilitators help parties communicate effectively, explore interests, generate options, and negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. The outcome is not a decision rendered by a third party but an agreement voluntarily reached by the parties themselves.

This fundamental difference has important implications. Arbitration results in a win-lose outcome determined by the arbitrator, while mediation and conciliation seek win-win solutions that satisfy all parties’ interests. Arbitration is backward-looking, focusing on past events and legal rights, while mediation and conciliation can be forward-looking, addressing future relationships and practical concerns. Arbitration typically results in a written award with reasoning, while mediated and conciliated settlements can take various forms tailored to the parties’ needs.

Mediation and Conciliation versus Lok Adalats

Lok Adalats, or people’s courts, are another important form of alternative dispute resolution in India, established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Lok Adalats are forums where disputes are resolved through compromise and mutual agreement under the guidance of a presiding officer, typically a judicial officer or experienced advocate. Cases may be referred to Lok Adalats by courts or may be brought directly by parties.

Lok Adalats share some similarities with mediation and conciliation in that they emphasize settlement rather than adjudication. However, several differences exist. Lok Adalats are typically less formal than structured mediation or conciliation processes and may handle multiple cases simultaneously in a single session. Awards passed by Lok Adalats are deemed to be decrees of civil courts and are final and binding on all parties, with no appeal lying to any court against the award. Lok Adalats are particularly effective for resolving certain types of disputes such as motor accident claims, family disputes, and small monetary claims.

Advantages and Challenges of Mediation and Conciliation

Benefits for Parties

Mediation and conciliation offer numerous advantages that have contributed to their growing popularity in India. Cost efficiency is a primary benefit, as these processes typically involve lower fees than prolonged litigation or arbitration and can be completed in a fraction of the time. Time savings are equally significant, with mediation and conciliation often resolving disputes in weeks or months rather than the years that court cases may require. This speed is particularly valuable for commercial parties who need certainty and closure to make business decisions.

Confidentiality is another important advantage, especially for commercial disputes or sensitive personal matters. Unlike court proceedings, which are generally public, mediation and conciliation sessions are private, and the discussions and documents exchanged during the process cannot be disclosed or used in subsequent litigation. This confidentiality encourages parties to explore settlement options freely without fear that their positions or concessions might be used against them if settlement is not reached.

Flexibility and party control distinguish mediation and conciliation from adjudicatory processes. Parties have significant control over the process, including the choice of mediator or conciliator, the procedures to be followed, and the terms of any settlement. This flexibility allows parties to craft creative solutions tailored to their specific needs and interests, rather than being limited to the remedies a court might order. For example, in a commercial dispute, parties might agree to future business arrangements, non-monetary relief, or structured payment terms that a court could not impose.

Preservation of relationships is a crucial benefit in many contexts. The collaborative nature of mediation and conciliation is less adversarial than litigation, helping parties maintain or repair relationships that might be valuable for future business dealings, family connections, or community harmony. In commercial contexts, parties who resolve disputes through mediation or conciliation may be able to continue beneficial business relationships that would be destroyed by contentious litigation.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite these advantages, mediation and conciliation face certain challenges in the Indian context. Awareness and acceptance of these mechanisms remain uneven, with many parties and lawyers more familiar with traditional litigation. Some parties view mediation and conciliation skeptically, questioning whether a voluntary process can deliver results or whether it merely delays inevitable litigation. Cultural factors may also influence participation, as some parties may perceive willingness to mediate as a sign of weakness in their legal position.

The quality and availability of trained mediators and conciliators present another challenge. While significant progress has been made in developing training programs and establishing mediation centers, the demand for qualified practitioners exceeds supply in many regions. Ensuring consistent quality across mediators and maintaining high professional standards requires ongoing attention to training, evaluation, and regulation of practitioners.

Enforcement of settlement agreements, while legally robust, can present practical challenges. If a party refuses to comply with a settlement voluntarily, the other party must seek court assistance for execution, which may involve delays and additional costs. Moreover, in cases involving parties from different jurisdictions, cross-border enforcement may present complications despite the legal status of settlements as arbitral awards.

Power imbalances between parties can affect the mediation and conciliation process. In situations where one party has significantly greater resources, legal sophistication, or bargaining power, there is a risk that settlements may not reflect fair outcomes. Skilled mediators and conciliators can help address such imbalances through process management and reality testing, but the voluntary nature of these processes means parties must ultimately agree to terms rather than having a neutral adjudicator impose equitable solutions.

Future Directions and Recent Developments

The Mediation Act, 2023

Recognizing the need for dedicated legislation to govern mediation, Parliament recently enacted the Mediation Act, 2023, which received Presidential assent in September 2023. This Act provides for the first time a statutory framework for mediation in India, similar to the framework that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for conciliation. The Act aims to promote and facilitate mediation, especially institutional mediation, for the resolution of disputes, commercial or otherwise, provide for a body for registration of mediators, encourage community mediation and make online mediation as acceptable and cost-effective process.[6]

The Mediation Act covers both domestic and international mediation, establishes a Mediation Council of India to promote and regulate mediation, provides for pre-litigation mediation in certain cases, and creates a framework for online mediation. The Act also addresses the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements and their recognition in Indian courts. This legislation represents a significant development in institutionalizing mediation as a mainstream dispute resolution mechanism in India.

International Developments

India has also engaged with international developments in mediation and alternative dispute resolution. The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation, entered into force in September 2020. This Convention provides a framework for the cross-border enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements, similar to the New York Convention for arbitral awards. While India has not yet signed the Singapore Convention, there is ongoing discussion about whether India should accede to it to facilitate international commercial mediation and enhance India’s attractiveness as a dispute resolution hub.

Indian institutions are increasingly developing mediation rules and services aligned with international best practices. The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, for example, has established mediation rules and services for both domestic and international commercial disputes. These institutional developments complement court-annexed mediation services and provide parties with professional alternative dispute resolution options comparable to those available in other major jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Mediation and conciliation have evolved from peripheral alternatives to mainstream dispute resolution mechanisms in India. The legislative framework provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for conciliation, the court-driven development of mediation following the Salem Advocate Bar Association judgment, and the introduction of mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act demonstrate a clear policy commitment to promoting these processes. The recent enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023 further institutionalizes mediation and provides a dedicated statutory framework for its practice and regulation.

The advantages of mediation and conciliation in terms of cost, time, confidentiality, flexibility, and relationship preservation make them particularly suitable for many types of disputes. The success of court-annexed mediation centers and the increasing use of pre-institution mediation in commercial matters demonstrate the practical value of these mechanisms. As awareness grows, training improves, and institutional infrastructure develops, mediation and conciliation are likely to play an increasingly important role in India’s dispute resolution landscape.

However, challenges remain in ensuring consistent quality, adequate availability of trained practitioners, and effective enforcement of settlements. Ongoing efforts to promote awareness, develop professional standards, and strengthen institutional capacity will be essential to realizing the full potential of mediation and conciliation. With continued support from the legislature, judiciary, and legal profession, these alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can contribute significantly to making justice more accessible, affordable, and efficient for all parties.

References

[1] India Code. (1996). The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1978

[2] Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. Supreme Court of India. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342197/

[3] India Code. (2015). The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2156

[4] Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1. Supreme Court of India. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17456393/

[5] Supreme Court of India. (2023). Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation Mandate. Bar and Bench. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com

[6] India Code. (2023). The Mediation Act, 2023. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2181

[7] PRS Legislative Research. (2018). The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. Available at: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-commercial-courts-commercial-division-and-commercial-appellate-division-of-high-courts-amendment-bill-2018

[8] Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. India Code. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1735

[9] Mondaq. (2023). Mediation and Conciliation in India: Recent Developments. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com