LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ritu Pandey   03 September 2024

Alternative dispute resolution

Judge Arjun Mehta, known for his balanced and fair judgments, has recently completed extensive training in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. This training emphasized the benefits of mediation, arbitration, and negotiation as ways to resolve disputes more efficiently and amicably. Soon after his training, Judge Mehta is assigned a high-stakes civil case involving a business partnership dispute. The parties, however, are deeply entrenched in their positions and have explicitly expressed their strong opposition to any form of mediation or ADR, insisting on a full trial to settle their differences.

Despite their reluctance, Judge Mehta, aware of the potential advantages of ADR, considers suggesting mediation as a means to resolve the conflict. He believes that mediation could save time, reduce costs, and help preserve the business relationship between the parties. However, he is also conscious of the importance of maintaining his impartiality and respecting the parties' preferences.

If Judge Mehta were to suggest alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods despite the parties’ adamant opposition, would this decision risk undermining his impartiality, or is it consistent with his judicial role and training to encourage such methods for the benefit of the parties involved? Would Judge Mehta’s suggestion of ADR, against the parties’ wishes, be seen as a breach of impartiality? Could it be perceived as him favoring one method of dispute resolution over another, thereby influencing the case’s outcome in a manner inconsistent with his role as an impartial adjudicator?

 



Learning

 2 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate)     03 September 2024

The contents, as well the tone and tenor of the posting, suggests it to be a moot court question.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     03 September 2024

The referral Judge only requires to acquaint himself with the facts of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties and to make an objective assessment to the sutialbility of the case for the reference to ADR.

Due to the call of the hour and need for faster delivery of justice, the judiciary promoted Alternative Dispute Resolution (also known as ADR). ADR is an alternative mechanism to conventional or traditional method developed to resolve the dispute amicably with the help of a neutral third party.

As such, it is the role of the judiciary to guarantee legal certainty, determining disputes and protecting the rights and the liberties of all. It also protects vulnerable groups and individuals that cannot protect themselves.

The enabling legal framework for resolution of disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been provided under Section 89, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Section 89 recognises, Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation and Judicial Settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat.

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register