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

The post Mediation and Conciliation: Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in India appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Indian legal system has long grappled with an overwhelming backlog of cases that has plagued courts at every level. With civil litigation often stretching beyond a decade before reaching resolution, the need for efficient alternatives to traditional court proceedings has become increasingly apparent. Among the various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available, conciliation has emerged as a particularly effective method for resolving disputes outside the courtroom while maintaining the relationships between parties and ensuring confidential, voluntary, and mutually acceptable outcomes.

Conciliation represents a structured yet flexible approach to dispute resolution where parties engage with the assistance of a neutral third party to explore settlement possibilities. Unlike arbitration, where an arbitrator imposes a binding decision, or litigation, where a judge delivers a verdict, conciliation empowers the disputing parties themselves to craft solutions that address their specific needs and interests. This fundamental characteristic makes conciliation especially valuable in commercial contexts where ongoing business relationships matter as much as the resolution of immediate disputes.

Understanding Conciliation: Conceptual Framework

Conciliation operates as a confidential, voluntary, and private dispute resolution process wherein a neutral conciliator facilitates negotiations between disputing parties to help them reach a negotiated settlement. The conciliator serves as a communication conduit, filtering out emotional and adversarial elements that often obstruct productive dialogue, allowing parties to focus on their core objectives and underlying interests rather than entrenched positions.

The terms “conciliation” and “mediation” are frequently used interchangeably within the Indian legal context, though subtle distinctions exist in international practice. What remains consistent across interpretations is that the conciliator lacks the authority to impose any settlement upon the parties. The conciliator’s function centers on breaking deadlocks, encouraging amicable resolutions, facilitating communication, and helping parties explore creative options they might not have considered independently.

One of the distinguishing features of conciliation is its informal nature. While arbitration is less formal than litigation, conciliation operates with even greater flexibility, allowing parties to structure proceedings according to their specific circumstances. This informality extends to venue selection, timing, procedural rules, and the manner in which information is exchanged and discussed.

The voluntary character of conciliation means that parties retain complete autonomy throughout the process. Either party may withdraw at any stage without prejudice to their legal position, ensuring that participation remains genuinely consensual rather than coerced. This freedom paradoxically often leads to higher settlement rates, as parties who choose to engage in conciliation typically possess genuine motivation to resolve their disputes amicably.

Legislative Framework Governing Conciliation in India

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The primary legislative instrument governing conciliation in India is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1]. This Act represented a watershed moment in Indian dispute resolution law, as it consolidated and streamlined provisions previously scattered across multiple statutes. The Act was initially promulgated as an Ordinance before receiving legislative approval, reflecting the urgency with which lawmakers sought to modernize India’s dispute resolution framework.

The 1996 Act was drafted substantially along the lines of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, bringing Indian law into alignment with international best practices. For the first time, Indian legislation provided statutory recognition to conciliation, dedicating an entire part of the Act to establishing elaborate rules governing conciliation proceedings.

Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically addresses conciliation, spanning sections 61 through 81. These provisions establish the foundational principles governing conciliation, including the appointment of conciliators, the commencement and conduct of proceedings, the role and function of conciliators, confidentiality requirements, termination procedures, and the status of settlement agreements. The Act explicitly provides that a settlement agreement reached through conciliation carries the same status and effect as an arbitral award, making it enforceable as if it were a decree of court [2].

This legislative framework ensures that parties need not have a pre-existing conciliation clause or arbitration agreement to refer their disputes to conciliation. Parties can agree to conciliation even after a dispute has arisen, provided both parties give written consent. This flexibility significantly expands the potential applicability of conciliation across diverse dispute scenarios.

Code of Civil Procedure Amendment of 2002

Recognizing that legislative enablement of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms alone would prove insufficient without judicial integration, Parliament amended the Code of Civil Procedure in 2002 to incorporate ADR methods into the litigation process itself. The insertion of Section 89 into the Code of Civil Procedure marked a significant shift in judicial philosophy, transforming courts from purely adjudicatory bodies into facilitators of dispute resolution [3].

Section 89 empowers courts, where it appears that elements exist which may be acceptable to the parties, to formulate terms of a possible settlement and refer the matter for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement through Lok Adalat, or mediation. This provision integrates alternative dispute resolution directly into civil proceedings, making it an integral component of the judicial process rather than an external alternative.

The amendment reflected Parliament’s acknowledgment that India’s court system, burdened with an overwhelming backlog accumulated over decades, required more than incremental procedural improvements. By mandating judicial officers to actively consider and facilitate alternative dispute resolution at appropriate stages of litigation, the amendment sought to reduce the burden on courts while simultaneously providing litigants with faster, more cost-effective resolution options.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Beyond commercial disputes, conciliation plays a vital role in resolving labour and industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Act established a framework for conciliation officers and boards of conciliation specifically tasked with resolving disputes between employers and workmen. The Act requires that before any industrial dispute can be referred to labour courts or industrial tribunals for adjudication, conciliation proceedings must generally be attempted. This mandatory conciliation requirement reflects the legislature’s recognition that industrial harmony is best preserved through negotiated settlements rather than imposed decisions.

The Conciliation Process: Practical Application

The conciliation process typically unfolds through several distinct phases, each designed to facilitate communication, identify interests, explore options, and ultimately reach mutually acceptable solutions.

Selection and Appointment of Conciliator

The process begins with selecting a conciliator who serves as a neutral third party. Parties may select a conciliator themselves through mutual agreement, or they may seek assistance from an institution specializing in alternative dispute resolution. The choice of conciliator often proves crucial to the success of conciliation, as the conciliator’s skills, experience, industry knowledge, and interpersonal abilities directly influence the parties’ willingness to engage constructively.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows parties to agree on procedures for appointing conciliators, including appointing a sole conciliator or multiple conciliators. Where parties cannot agree on appointment procedures, the Act provides default mechanisms to ensure proceedings can commence despite initial disagreements.

Initial Session and Procedural Framework

At the initial session, fundamental procedural matters are addressed. Decisions are made regarding who will attend the conciliation proceedings, whether parties will be accompanied by legal counsel or other advisors, the location and timing of sessions, and how costs will be allocated. Typically, parties share the costs of initial sessions equally, though alternative arrangements may be negotiated.

During this initial phase, the conciliator explains the conciliation process to all participants, ensuring everyone understands the voluntary nature of proceedings, confidentiality protections, the conciliator’s role and limitations, and the potential outcomes. Ground rules emphasizing courtesy, respect, and propriety are established, creating an atmosphere conducive to productive dialogue rather than adversarial confrontation.

Issue Identification and Information Exchange

Following the procedural groundwork, parties are encouraged to present their perspectives on the dispute. Unlike litigation or arbitration, where presentation of cases follows strict evidentiary rules and adversarial structures, conciliation allows for more open-ended discussion. Parties can express their concerns, frustrations, and priorities without the formal constraints that characterize adjudicatory proceedings.

The conciliator actively listens during this phase, refraining from judgment while identifying the core issues underlying the dispute. Often, what parties initially present as their primary concerns mask deeper interests or needs that must be addressed for meaningful resolution. The conciliator’s skill in identifying these underlying interests proves critical to moving beyond surface-level positions toward substantive solutions.

One significant advantage of conciliation is the confidentiality of sessions. Information disclosed during conciliation cannot be used as evidence in subsequent arbitral, judicial, or other proceedings. This protection encourages parties to speak candidly, explore creative options, and make offers they might otherwise hesitate to make in formal proceedings where every statement could potentially be used against them.

Private Sessions and Shuttle Diplomacy

Where parties are reluctant to disclose certain information in joint sessions, or where direct communication between parties has become so strained that joint sessions prove counterproductive, the conciliator may conduct private sessions with each party separately. During these private sessions, the conciliator can explore sensitive issues, test potential settlement parameters, and draw out information that parties might be unwilling to share in the presence of their adversaries.

Crucially, information disclosed during private sessions can be kept confidential if the disclosing party so requests. This confidentiality enables the conciliator to understand each party’s true interests, concerns, and settlement boundaries without forcing premature disclosure that might harden positions or damage negotiating leverage.

Through a process sometimes called “shuttle diplomacy,” the conciliator moves between parties, carrying proposals and counter-proposals, testing reactions to potential solutions, and gradually narrowing the gap between parties’ positions. This iterative process allows parties to explore settlement possibilities without the risks associated with making direct offers that might be rejected or exploited.

Brainstorming and Creative Problem-Solving

A distinctive feature of effective conciliation is the emphasis on creative problem-solving. Rather than viewing disputes as zero-sum contests where one party’s gain necessarily means another’s loss, conciliation encourages parties to identify mutually beneficial solutions that might not be available through adjudication.

The conciliator facilitates brainstorming sessions where parties explore multiple options without immediately committing to any particular solution. This approach helps parties move away from fixed positions toward a focus on underlying interests. For example, in a commercial dispute over payment terms, parties might discover that their real interests involve cash flow management, risk allocation, and maintaining business relationships rather than simply the specific payment schedule that triggered the dispute.

By expanding the range of potential solutions beyond the binary outcomes typically available through litigation, conciliation often achieves results that better serve all parties’ actual interests. Settlement agreements might include non-monetary terms, future business arrangements, public statements, confidentiality provisions, or other elements that courts would lack authority to order but that prove valuable to the parties themselves.

Settlement Agreement and Enforcement

When parties reach consensus on settlement terms, a written agreement is prepared documenting their understanding. This settlement agreement should be clear, comprehensive, and specific, leaving no ambiguity about parties’ respective obligations. Both parties typically sign the agreement, often in the presence of the conciliator who may also sign as witness to the settlement.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a settlement agreement reached through conciliation has the same status and effect as an arbitral award. This provision is crucial, as it means the settlement agreement becomes enforceable through the same mechanisms available for enforcing arbitral awards and court decrees. If a party fails to honor the settlement agreement, the other party can seek enforcement through courts without needing to relitigate the underlying dispute.

Post-Settlement Monitoring

Effective conciliation does not necessarily end with the signing of a settlement agreement. Monitoring and reviewing implementation of the settlement often proves valuable, particularly in complex commercial relationships where settlement terms may require ongoing performance rather than a single act. Some conciliation processes include provisions for the conciliator to remain available to assist with questions about interpretation or implementation of settlement terms, though the conciliator’s role at this stage is typically limited to clarification rather than adjudication of new disputes.

Types of Disputes Suitable for Conciliation

Conciliation proves particularly effective for certain categories of disputes, though its flexibility makes it adaptable to a broad range of conflict situations.

Commercial and Contractual Disputes

Commercial disputes involving contract interpretation, performance issues, payment disputes, and breach of contract allegations are especially well-suited for conciliation. In these contexts, parties often have ongoing business relationships they wish to preserve, making the collaborative nature of conciliation preferable to the adversarial character of litigation. Commercial parties also typically value the speed and confidentiality that conciliation offers, as protracted public litigation can damage business reputations and disrupt operations.

Financial and Banking Disputes

Disputes between financial institutions and their customers, between lenders and borrowers, or involving investment matters can be effectively resolved through conciliation. The financial sector’s complexity often means that litigation produces suboptimal outcomes, as courts may lack specialized expertise to appreciate nuanced financial arrangements. Conciliators with financial expertise can help parties craft solutions that account for financial realities while maintaining commercial relationships.

Real Estate and Property Disputes

Property disputes, including landlord-tenant disagreements, partnership property matters, and real estate transaction disputes, frequently benefit from conciliation. These disputes often involve parties who must maintain ongoing relationships or who have strong interests beyond the immediate legal issues. Conciliation allows exploration of creative solutions such as modified payment terms, property exchanges, or reconfigured arrangements that litigation could not provide.

Employment and Service Disputes

Workplace disputes involving termination, discrimination, harassment, wage disputes, or other employment matters are increasingly resolved through conciliation. Employment relationships are inherently personal and ongoing, making the collaborative approach of conciliation more appropriate than adversarial litigation. Additionally, both employers and employees often value the confidentiality that conciliation provides, protecting reputations and avoiding publicity that litigation inevitably brings.

Intellectual Property Disputes

Disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, licensing agreements, and technology transfers can be effectively addressed through conciliation. The specialized nature of intellectual property and the importance of preserving business relationships in technology and creative industries make conciliation attractive. Parties can craft licensing arrangements, cross-licensing agreements, or other solutions that litigation could not impose but that serve their mutual interests.

Family and Matrimonial Disputes

While family disputes involve unique emotional dimensions, conciliation has proven effective in resolving issues such as divorce settlements, child custody arrangements, division of matrimonial property, and maintenance disputes. The collaborative nature of conciliation often produces more durable solutions than contested litigation, particularly where parties must maintain ongoing relationships due to children or shared interests.

Consumer Disputes

Consumer protection matters involving defective products, service failures, or unfair trade practices can be resolved through conciliation, offering consumers faster relief than traditional litigation while allowing businesses to address legitimate grievances without costly legal proceedings.

Advantages of Conciliation Over Traditional Litigation

Conciliation offers numerous advantages that explain its growing adoption as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

Speed and Efficiency

Conciliation can be scheduled at an early stage in a dispute, often before positions have hardened and legal costs have escalated. Cases that might take years to resolve through litigation can often be settled within weeks or months through conciliation. This speed benefits parties by reducing the period of uncertainty, allowing them to move forward with their personal or business affairs rather than remaining mired in protracted legal proceedings.

Cost Effectiveness

The costs associated with conciliation are substantially lower than litigation expenses. Parties save on court fees, extensive legal representation costs, expert witness fees, and the indirect costs of staff time and management attention diverted to litigation. By sharing conciliation costs and resolving disputes quickly, parties preserve resources that can be deployed toward productive purposes rather than consumed by legal conflict.

Preservation of Relationships

Perhaps the most significant advantage of conciliation is its capacity to preserve relationships between parties. Unlike litigation, which is inherently adversarial and often destroys whatever goodwill might have existed between parties, conciliation’s collaborative approach allows parties to resolve their immediate dispute while maintaining the capacity for future interaction. This proves especially valuable in commercial contexts where parties may wish to continue business relationships, family contexts where ongoing interaction is inevitable, or employment contexts where reputational considerations matter.

Confidentiality

Conciliation proceedings are confidential, with information disclosed during conciliation protected from use in subsequent proceedings. This confidentiality encourages candid discussion and creative problem-solving while protecting parties from the reputational damage that public litigation often causes. Businesses can resolve disputes without exposing proprietary information, trade secrets, or internal practices to public scrutiny. Individuals can address personal matters without media attention or public judgment.

Party Control and Flexibility

Unlike litigation or arbitration, where third-party decision-makers impose outcomes on parties, conciliation keeps control firmly in the parties’ hands. Parties craft their own solutions, ensuring outcomes reflect their actual needs and priorities rather than legal principles that may not account for practical realities. This control extends to procedural matters as well, with parties able to structure proceedings to suit their circumstances rather than conforming to rigid court procedures.

Creative Solutions

Conciliation enables creative solutions that go beyond the remedies courts can order. Settlement agreements can include non-monetary terms, future business arrangements, public statements, apologies, structural changes, or any other terms parties find valuable. This flexibility often produces more satisfying outcomes than the limited remedies available through adjudication.

High Success Rates

In jurisdictions that have embraced conciliation, success rates are remarkably high. Parties who voluntarily engage in conciliation with genuine motivation to resolve disputes typically achieve settlements at rates exceeding seventy percent. This high success rate reflects the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving when parties approach negotiations in good faith with skilled neutral facilitation.

Judicial Recognition and Enforceability

The enforceability of conciliation settlements represents a crucial aspect of the process’s effectiveness. Under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when parties sign a settlement agreement, the conciliation proceedings are terminated. Section 74 provides that the settlement agreement is binding on the parties and has the same status and effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 of the Act.

This legislative provision means that settlement agreements reached through conciliation are enforceable through the same mechanisms available for arbitral awards. A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement can approach courts, which will treat the agreement as if it were a court decree. This enforcement mechanism provides parties with confidence that conciliation settlements are not merely moral commitments but legally binding obligations backed by judicial enforcement power.

Indian courts have consistently upheld the binding nature of conciliation settlements and have refused to reopen disputes that parties resolved through conciliation. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the finality of settlements reached through such processes [4]. The Court observed that when parties have voluntarily agreed to resolve their disputes through alternative mechanisms, courts should encourage such settlements rather than permitting parties to relitigate resolved matters.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite its numerous advantages, conciliation faces certain challenges and limitations that parties should understand before choosing this dispute resolution path.

Voluntary Nature and Power Imbalances

The voluntary nature of conciliation, while generally advantageous, can become problematic when significant power imbalances exist between parties. A stronger party might use the informal nature of conciliation to pressure weaker parties into unfavorable settlements. While skilled conciliators can help address power imbalances, the lack of formal procedural protections available in litigation means vulnerable parties might face disadvantages.

No Binding Decision Without Consent

Because conciliators cannot impose solutions, conciliation only succeeds when parties genuinely wish to resolve their disputes. If one party participates without genuine commitment to settlement, conciliation efforts may prove fruitless, resulting in wasted time and expense. In such cases, parties ultimately must resort to litigation or arbitration, making conciliation an unsuccessful detour rather than an efficient resolution path.

Limited Availability of Qualified Conciliators

The success of conciliation depends heavily on conciliator skill, experience, and expertise. However, India faces a shortage of well-trained, experienced conciliators, particularly outside major urban centers. The absence of standardized training programs and certification requirements means conciliator quality varies significantly, potentially undermining the effectiveness of conciliation proceedings.

Enforcement of International Settlements

While domestic conciliation settlements receive clear enforcement mechanisms under Indian law, international conciliation settlements face more complex enforcement challenges. Unlike the New York Convention, which provides for international enforcement of arbitral awards, no comparable international framework exists for conciliation settlements. The 2018 Singapore Convention on Mediation represents progress toward international enforcement, but its implementation remains limited [5].

Lack of Precedent and Legal Development

Because conciliation settlements are confidential and do not produce published decisions, they do not contribute to legal precedent development. This lack of precedent can be problematic in cases raising novel legal questions where parties and the broader business community would benefit from authoritative legal guidance.

Comparison with Other Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Understanding how conciliation differs from other dispute resolution mechanisms helps parties make informed choices about the most appropriate process for their specific disputes.

Conciliation versus Arbitration

While both conciliation and arbitration are creatures of consent, they differ fundamentally in outcome. Arbitration produces binding decisions imposed by arbitrators, whereas conciliation produces voluntary settlements crafted by parties themselves. Arbitration resembles litigation in its adversarial structure and focus on legal rights, while conciliation emphasizes interests, relationships, and creative problem-solving. Parties seeking a definitive resolution of legal questions or lacking trust necessary for collaborative negotiation may prefer arbitration, while those valuing relationships and control over outcomes may favor conciliation.

Conciliation versus Mediation

In the Indian context, conciliation and mediation are treated as interchangeable terms, though international practice sometimes distinguishes them. Where distinctions are drawn, mediation is characterized as more facilitative, with mediators helping parties communicate but remaining strictly neutral about outcomes. Conciliation is sometimes described as more evaluative, with conciliators potentially offering opinions about the strength of parties’ cases or appropriate settlement terms. However, these distinctions lack significance in Indian law, which uses the terms synonymously.

Conciliation versus Lok Adalat

Lok Adalats, or people’s courts, represent a uniquely Indian institution for resolving disputes through conciliation at the grassroots level. While Lok Adalats share conciliation’s emphasis on voluntary settlement, they differ in structure and scope. Lok Adalats are organized by legal services authorities and typically handle high volumes of smaller disputes, often involving government entities. Traditional conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act handles more complex commercial disputes and follows more structured procedures. Lok Adalat settlements are final and binding, not appealable, and are treated as court decrees.

Conciliation versus Negotiation

Direct negotiation between parties shares conciliation’s emphasis on voluntary settlement but lacks the neutral third-party facilitator. Negotiations can fail when parties become deadlocked, communication breaks down, or emotions prevent rational evaluation of options. Conciliation addresses these limitations by introducing a skilled neutral who can facilitate communication, suggest alternatives, and help parties overcome obstacles to settlement.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

The landscape of conciliation in India continues to evolve, with several recent developments shaping its future trajectory.

Institutional Development

Various institutions have emerged to provide conciliation services, including the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, and specialized industry-specific dispute resolution bodies. These institutions provide trained conciliators, established procedures, administrative support, and quality assurance, making conciliation more accessible and reliable.

Integration with Commercial Courts

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which established specialized courts for commercial disputes, also mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes below specified value thresholds [6]. This mandatory mediation requirement reflects legislative recognition that many commercial disputes can be resolved more efficiently through facilitated negotiation than through adjudication.

Singapore Convention on Mediation

India signed the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, commonly known as the Singapore Convention, in 2019, though it has not yet ratified the treaty [7]. When implemented, this Convention will provide a framework for cross-border enforcement of mediation settlements, potentially increasing the attractiveness of conciliation for international commercial disputes.

Technology-Enabled Conciliation

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of technology-enabled dispute resolution, including online conciliation. While initially adopted out of necessity during lockdowns, virtual conciliation has demonstrated advantages including reduced costs, greater scheduling flexibility, and improved accessibility. The future likely involves hybrid models combining virtual and in-person sessions based on parties’ needs and dispute characteristics.

Specialized Conciliation for Emerging Disputes

As new categories of disputes emerge in areas such as technology, data privacy, e-commerce, and cryptocurrency, specialized conciliation mechanisms are being developed. These specialized processes feature conciliators with domain expertise and procedures tailored to the unique characteristics of disputes in rapidly evolving fields.

Conclusion

Conciliation has established itself as a vital component of India’s dispute resolution ecosystem, offering parties a collaborative, efficient, and relationship-preserving alternative to traditional litigation. The legislative framework provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, combined with judicial recognition of conciliation settlements and growing institutional support, has created an environment conducive to conciliation’s continued growth.

The advantages of conciliation including speed, cost-effectiveness, confidentiality, preservation of relationships, and party control over outcomes make it particularly well-suited to commercial disputes, though its flexibility allows application across diverse dispute types. As India continues to develop its alternative dispute resolution infrastructure, enhance conciliator training, and adapt to technological innovations, conciliation’s role in providing accessible justice is likely to expand further.

For parties facing disputes, conciliation represents not merely an alternative to litigation but often a superior choice that addresses not only the immediate legal issues but also the underlying interests and relationships that matter most to parties themselves. As awareness of conciliation’s benefits grows and institutional capabilities strengthen, this dispute resolution mechanism will increasingly fulfill its promise of delivering efficient, effective, and satisfying justice.

References

[1] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

[2] Section 74, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 

[3] Section 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended) 

[4] Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24

[5] United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation), available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements 

[6] The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 

[7] UNCITRAL Singapore Convention on Mediation: Status, available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/international_settlement_agreements/status 

The post Conciliation as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism in India appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.