Corporate LawResearch Article

Problems in Successful Implementation of ADR in India and Drawing a Comparison with ADR Implementation of SIAC


Author: Adhikarla  Shraddha, 3rd Year B.A. LL.B. (H.) student at Amity University Mumbai. 

ABSTRACT

Alternate dispute resolution is known to be a mode through which the disputes could be resolved. There are various subject matters on which it resolves disputes such as civil, commercial, industrial and many more. Resolving a dispute through this medium takes help of the third party which is not involved in the matter, in dispute. It requires a third neutral party to communicate and discuss the issue in order to get a solution to the issue so that it could be resolved. It seems to be a useful medium of resolution of disputes. In India, the concept of ADR is enshrined in the Article 14 and 21 which is based on the idea of equality before law and right to life and personal liberty[1]. This project aims to discuss the history of ADR, reason behind implementation of ADR in India, objective, scope of ADR. This project also aims to shed some light on the failure of successful implementation of ADR in India and comparatively analyse it with the implementation of ADR by SIAC.

INTRODUCTION

Alternate dispute resolution which is also referred to as ADR refers to a mechanism for resolution of various forms of disputes that do not deal much with the judicial court processes. It is predominantly based on the initiation of the settlement of dispute by way of negotiations either directly by the parties or by involving the third neutral party. This form of resolution of disputes includes the checking of the conflicts and resolving them, so this leads the parties cooperating together in order to reach a solution. This mechanism provides for an efficient and functional way of obtaining justice and when the courts do have the capability of providing justice through the judicial procedures. It is also seen that by using this method, it costs less amount of money and time for resolving such disputes of the parties[2].

It has been seen that this redressal method of dispute has been increasing in the subject matters of law and commerce sector both at the national and international front. In India, every citizen under the right to life and personal liberty which has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also has a right to speedy trial under it. Even though the right has been guaranteed under the constitution of India, solely to provide the parties with the just, fair and a reasonable procedure there is still an issue of implementation of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism in India[3].

Origin Of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) In India-

  • Ancient India Era-

Law of arbitration has existed from the times of ancient India where it was a well known form of mechanism and was accessible even at that time. Earlier the order of the panchayats were known as panchats and were irrevocable by the parties as it was like a law in force. These panchayats were either the head of the family, head of the community or the selected resident of a village or the town[4].

Prior to the current scenario Panchayats were considered to be the lowest form of tribunal and the awards given by them were subject to appeal[5].

This idea was imbibed in The Bengal Regulation of 1781 where the only route that was left open for the aggrieved parties was that they had to question the awards on the grounds of misconduct of the Panchayat. The known misconduct could either be corruption or partiality. This had caused resistance by the people to become panches and the panchayat system had fallen and neglected even in the eyes of the public. Then in The Regulation of 1787, the courts were given power to refer certain suits to arbitration, but no provision was made in the Regulation for cases where there was a difference of opinion among the arbitrators. The Bengal Regulation of 1793 (XVI of 1793) had given the court power to consider the matters in consideration to arbitration with the consent of the parties where the value of the suit was with Rs. 200/-. The suit that it dealt with were accounts, partnership, debts, non-performance of contracts,etc. This Regulation XV of 1795 extended The Regulation XVI of 1793 to Benaras. Similarly, the Regulation XXI o f1803 extended The Regulation XVI of the territory ceded the Nawab Vazeer[6].

From then The Madras Regulation IV of 1816 had given power to the Panchayats in order to resolve the disputes. There are similar provisions in The Bombay Regulation IV and VII of 1827.

  • British India Era

It was mentioned in The Civil Procedure Code, 1859; The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Specific Relief Act, 1877 that no contract could be enforced if it referred to the present or further issues in respect of arbitration. So, if a party had refused to amend his part of the contract then the contract was not allowed to be filed as a suit in respect of the same issue. When The Arbitration Act, 1877 was enacted it had mandated that appeals and The Code of Civil Procedure, 1859 were not applicable to the subject matters that were under the scope of the Arbitration Act or under the second schedule of The Code of Civil Procedure. Primarily in India, arbitration law was incorporated in the two enactments, one being in The Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 which was to extend to the presidency towns and the other areas that have been extended by the provincial government and the other being in the English Arbitration Act, 1899. The second schedule of The Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was related to the arbitration in suit mostly and also included alternative methods where if the parties to the dispute file for an arbitration agreement before the court which has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters, the court may after following certain protocol mentioned in The Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 may refer the matter to the arbitrator. The Arbitration Act, 1940 was later amended and Section 89(a) to 89(f) and Section 104 subsection (1) and the second schedule of the Code of 1908. As The Arbitration Act, 1899 was based on the then implemented english laws, the Civil justice committee had recommended some changes in the law which was later scrutinized and the arbitration bill had strengthened and standardised the law in relation to the arbitration law. The Bill had received the assent on 11th March, 1940 from the Governor- General and was known as The Arbitration Act, 1940[7].

In the case of Guru Nanak Foundation v. M/S Ratan Singh and Sons[8],In this case,The Supreme Court had stated that the Act was not effective and the proceedings under the Act that was conducted in the court had made the lawyers laugh and the legal philosophers weep. Experience had shown and the law reports consisted of the sufficient amount of testimonies which mentioned that the proceedings had become very technical and were prolonged at every stage and had created a legal trap for the unobservant. The informal forum chosen by the parties for speedy disposal of the disputes has been clothed with “legalese” of unforeseeable complexity which was decided by the courts.

After a few years in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal[9], The Hon’ble court had suggested that the law of Arbitration should be simplified and not be restrained by the use of the mechanical interpretation of such law.

  • Modern India-

The Alternate dispute mechanism was being noticed increasingly and so that had resulted in the enactment of Arbitration and the Conciliation Act, 1996 and inclusion of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as a part of the mechanism. Since The Arbitration Act, 1940 did not fulfil the requirements of both the domestic and international standards of arbitration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had pointed out in many cases that there was a need for a change in the law in relation to arbitration due to the delays in the proceedings by the courts and the courts intervention it had dimine the very purpose of resolving dispute through the process of arbitration[10].

So in conferences of the Chief Justices, Chief Ministers and the law Ministers of all the states, it was decided that the responsibility of the justice system cannot be put only on the shoulders of the judges of the court and so this dispute resolving mechanism was adopted. As a result of this, the government of India thought that it was necessary for establishment of the new forum and their procedure for resolving such disputes[11].

In the present times this form of resolving dispute has been increasingly known and accepted in the judicial sphere and also in the commercial sector. This being increasingly accepted is due to the time consuming processes, high cost of such processes and deficiency of the court system. In the last quarter of the previous century, there has been an exceptional growth in the field of science and technology and has made a significant growth and development in the commercial sector and this has led to increasing competition across the world. With such increase in competition and growth in the field of the commercial sector, the consumers are found to be concerned about protection of their rights and alternate dispute resolution has proved to be a powerful weapon for resolution of the disputes both at national and international level and is developing as a separate field of law[12].

Conciliation being one of the forms of arbitration, it has been effectively introduced and recognised in the labour law which is known as Industrial dispute Act, 1947 and is known to be a very effective form of resolving of the disputes. Previously all the parties to the industrial dispute had to go through the lengthy and tiresome processes which could extend beyond the lifespan of the parties to the dispute. Hence, it is this very factor that has led to increase in the practice of arbitration[13].

The Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 was introduced and was very similar to the laws in other countries. This Act ensures the freedom to the arbitrators while deciding the case and also in consideration of their nationality. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has brought any changes in consideration to the speedy trial of the cases. With the introduction of the Act, the foreign parties feel assured which leads them to invest in India or to go for joint venture, foreign investment, transfer of the technology and foreign collaborations[14].

Therefore alternate dispute resolution has become a vital part of the historical past. The idea of the lok adalat has been brought up by the indian constitution. It is seen to have a very long and deep root not only in history but also in the prehistoric period. As it has been proved to be a very efficient medium of litigation lok adalat is known to be a mechanism which has been playing an important role still today in the settlement of the disputes[15].

Scope and Objective of ADR

Alternate dispute resolution aims to provide resolving of the dispute not only in the civil litigation but also includes arbitration in itself and it is known to be a very effective form of resolution of the disputes. At present it is being observed very closely to litigation as it has to be in conformity with the statutory provisions and becomes virtually an adjudicatory procedure with all the formalities of a court. This is considered to be a real alternative only if it can be worked by the neutral third person who may bridge the gap between the parties by bringing them together through a process of conciliation, mediation or negotiation[16].

Alternate dispute resolution is known as a technique of dispute resolution where the third party intervenes and decides on the case and the decision is not legally binding on the parties. Alternate dispute resolution seems to be growing as it tries to restraint any form of rigidity or complexity even though it is unavoidable in the litigation processes[17].

Alternate dispute resolution has a very broad scope as it includes mediation, conciliation. It may be related to or integrated with the litigation but is not be considered as a part of litigation. It consists of various processes which vary in the form and application of it.

Under the Indira Gandhi government, a committee was set up in order to measure the access of justice and remedies to people at the national level. In one such committee meetings, a dialectical diagnosis of the pathology of the indo anglian judicial process was presented by the committee as follows:

Where the bulk of social and economic justice, the rule of law, notwithstanding its mien of majestic equality but fails its mission in the absence of the scheme to bring the system of justice near to the downtrodden. Therefore it becomes a democratic obligation to make the process a surrer means to social justice[18].

This has made us think about all the various other ways through which the disputes could be resolved between the parties or later going before the law of court.

Constitutional Background of Alternative Dispute Resolution

As per Article 39-A and 21 of the indian constitution, it provides free legal aid to the poor people who cannot afford to pay lawyers in order to defend themselves. This provides them with an opportunity to defend themselves[19].

The constitutional provision rescue operation had begun with justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati committee report. As per the report the poor people were to be authorised to approach the courts from the Munsiff courts to the Hon’ble supreme court.

The committee for the implementation of legal aid services(CILAS) had gone ahead and came up with some plan and instituted various methods of solving the civil disputes both in the legal and non legal set up[20].

On the very basis of this principle, the states have adopted lok adalats and legal aid services, family court and other various aspects of the alternate dispute resolution[21].

The very basis of good government is to provide justice to the people and our constitution has features of all the three aspects of economic justice, political justice and social justice. Hence for providing justice, it requires the creation of the ultra-modern dispersed framework and man power, synthetic and planned; need for the judicare technology and models; and remedy- oriented jurisprudence[22].

Legislative Recognition Of ADR

The people’s court verdict or nyaya panch is an ancient form of settlement of the disputes through the medium of mediation or through an arbitral process and this has been embedded in the ideology of lok adalat. Some people relate lok adalat with conciliation or mediation whereas some of them relate to it with negotiation or arbitration and those who find it different from all the other things mentioned call it people court as it involves the people who are directly or indirectly related to the disputes[23].

As the time passes by, the law relating to resolving of the dispute has been amended in order to facilitate speedy dispute resolution. As encourages the courts to settle all the pending cases. To lessen the burden of the courts organizations such as ICA, ICADR were established and consumer redressal forums and lok adalats were revived, so that ADR as a redressal mechanism could be effectively implemented. Hence, The Arbitration Act, 1940 was repealed and The Arbitration Act 1996 was introduced which is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law which is based on the international commercial arbitration[24].

The legislative sensitivity for providing speedy justice has been seen in two enactments, the first being the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the second being provided in Section 89 of the civil procedure code[25].

Shri M.C. Setalvad, former Attorney General of India has observed:
….equality is the basis of all modern systems of jurisprudence and administration of justice… in so far as a person is unable to obtain access to a court of law for having his wrongs or redressed for defending himself against a criminal charge, justice becomes unequal, …Unless some provision is made for assisting the poor men for the payment of Court fees and lawyer’s fees and other incidental costs of litigation, he is denied equality in the opportunity to seek justice”[26].

Implementation Of ADR in India

ADR is a means to speedy disposal of justice and the first to achieve that was taken in 1940 when the very first arbitration Act was introduced. There were many loopholes in the Act which led to it not being fully implemented and so the Act was repealed and a new Act was introduced in the year 1996 and was based on the principle and structure of the UNCITRAL law model. Many amendments were made and all the committee recommendations were looked upon and the fact this was being used by many corporates and businessmen. This also included providing this redressal mechanism for the weaker section of the society. Nonetheless, it could be seen that this has been limited only to the corporates and the businessman and lok adalat even though it has been adopted way before has not yet been implemented at the grassroot level very effectively and that section of the society still has to appear before the court and go through the long and unending processes and the stages of the court of law. For ADR to be implemented effectively and properly, there is a need for analysing the problem and finding a solution for it[27].

Problems in Implementation Of ADR in India

There are some of the problems that are being faced during the implementation of the ADR. they are as follows:

1. Attitude-

It is seen that the law of arbitration is mostly favoured in India. However, the final decision in regards to the arbitral awards has always been influenced by hate of the Indian sentiments. There has been testimonies of the parties to have gone through long and difficult struggles in order to be freed from the binding of the arbitral decision. The aim of every party to the dispute is to win and if one cannot win they make sure that the other side is not able to enforce the award as long as possible. If we consider this ideology for the settling of the disputes it could be said that this ideology is wrong even if this mechanism is being increasingly used. Here, the issue is that neither the private sector nor the public sector in India are yet to be infused with the presence of Arbitration. When the award is being permitted it should only be set aside when there seems to be a lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator, fraud or corruption of the arbitrator or of the other party. In the english law, jurisdiction to correct obvious errors was invented as a form of award and it later was introduced in The Indian Arbitration Act , 1940 which was a big mistake as the parties at fault would benefit from this and could become very negligent and not take things seriously. It is also seen that there exists a very thin line between merits of the award and errors of law which seem to be blurred out most of the time. There is uncertainty in the law of arbitration and the approach of the people that has influenced the domestic arbitration under The Arbitration Act, 1940[28].

This very aptly depicts the nature of arbitration as a mechanism in India and so there is a need for an enormous shift from the traditional approach of arbitration to the scientific and modern approach of arbitration. The concept of “win” is to be redefined and the idea of win-win situation is to be inculcated in the ADR mechanism. As the old law was repealed, a new law was introduced in the year 1996. However, it is not enough as the one thing that is necessary is for the judges and the lawyers to raise the era in which this court and the mechanism is structured and to be able to permit the arbitral award not with regards to the sentiments but in consideration to the underlying objective of arbitration [29].

2. Lawyer and Clients-

Lawyers and the parties to the dispute often have a very different attitude and interests in relation to the settlements. This could be because of the personalities of an individual or because of the money. For instance, when the client may want a binding precedent or in order to impress other potential litigants with its firmness and the consequent costs for asserting claims against it. There also may be a situation where there are no rational concerns in relation to the settlement and the only problem there could be is whether it should pay out the money and the cost that has been contested for settlement is less than the interest on the money. Under such circumstances the settlement may not be in the interest of the client[30].

3. Legal Education-

It is very well known that the law students are trained more for the conflicts that resolve such conflicts and this very reason has led to the poor performance of the lawyers before the court. Lawyers spend most of their time of their career negotiating the conflicts and spend less time on learning the art of conciliation by reading, researching and analysing the problems. It is believed that in the coming generations, it is going to be driven more by the practice of compromise and collaboration than leaning toward competition and rivalry and if the leaders do not cooperate and establish a mechanism in order to flourish, they won’t be at the centre of the most creative social experiments of our time[31].

4. Ignorance-

One such big reason for the failure of implementation of the ADR is the ignorance of the law that is prevailing at present. Even though there is an existence of the law in place there is no proper mechanism for implementing it at the grass-root level. This also due to people having no awareness about their own rights. The mechanisms of the ADR are very well known only by the big commercial sector people and the businessmen. Even though there is no excuse for ignorance of law but if people are not made aware of this how would people approach this mechanism[32]?

5. Poor Communication-

Effective Communication is very important, especially between the lawyer and the parties. An inability to communicate effectively could create an obstacle in the process of the successful negotiations. As the parties come from different social and cultural backgrounds it could cause an hindrance in understanding one another and acknowledging one’s concerns[33].

6. The option of ADR mechanism is available as soon as the dispute arises and it confers the maximum advantage to the parties. This method can be used to reduce the number of the issues between the parties and it could be terminated at any stage by any member of the disputing parties. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that the final decision could be reached.

7.  The very aim of the ADR is to lessen the burden of the Hon’ble courts. However, if the parties to the dispute are not satisfied with the arbitral award they could appeal before the court and so it could be seen that there is no reduction of the burden on the court whatsoever[34].

The ADR as a form of redressal mechanism is really effective, however, there is a lack of proper implementation of the ADR. especially for the weaker sections of the society. Since the awards are not legally binding upon the parties to dispute and if one is not satisfied with the award then one could still appeal. The very essence of ADR has been lost. So, it should be made mandatory[35].

Implementation Of ADR By SIAC

Singapore international arbitration center was established in 1991 and now it is considered to be a premier international arbitration institution. It provides a neutral, efficient and reliable resolution for settlement of the dispute in the regional hub that is the centre of Asia’s legal and business activity[36].

The case management services of SIAC is seen to be administered and maintained by the Court of Arbitration which includes many renowned practitioners from countries like Australia, Belgium, China, France, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, UK and USA[37].

It has managed to bring the most of the commercial disputes around the world for the dispute resolution. The Singapore parliament introduced the Arbitration Act in order to help with the growth and development of the objectives of the institution and the judicial body had reduced its intervention with the arbitration procedures so as to provide the smooth and the independent processes of the tribunal. SIAC is known to be one of the leading arbitration institutes among AAA, LICA and ICC. Many parties choose to opt for SIAC over these leading institutions as SIAC has a very unique setup and has supportive institutional rules[38].SIAC administers all its cases usually based on its own arbitration rule however they are open to consider the negotiation on the basis of the other laws on the suggestion and the consensus of the parties[39]. Unlike the Indian arbitration system the arbitral award given by SIAC is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute unless the parties feel there is an error in the computation, typographical error or any error of similar nature in the award a party may request the tribunal to make significant changes by giving a notice to the registrar. However, the changes could only be made if the tribunal thinks it to be right and justified and the correction is to be made within a certain time period from the day of receiving the notice[40].

As the competition keeps growing the companies are demanding faster and easier procedures for enforcement from the legal system. SIAC institutional rules on the speedy disposal of the dispute by way of arbitration procedures is one of the reasons as to why parties choose SIAC and also because of the fees when compared to the other institutions. the administrative charges of SIAC are reasonable, even though it has been criticised by the many scholars[41].

SIAC Rules is seen to be having a very efficient procedural framework for resolution of the international dispute of all kinds and nature of complexities involving the parties that come from different legal systems and cultures, it has a transparent financial management in respect of the case on the basis of the guidelines that are published allowing all the legal representatives to provide the clients with precise amounts for each and every stage of arbitration. It also tracks down the progress of the case and inspects the arbitral award so the issue in respect of enforcement is less likely to occur[42].

As per the Article 28, it was based on the principle of competence principle and the arbitration tribunal has the power to decide its own case. The registrar has also been empowered to refer the matter of the jurisdiction to the court. The courts of Singapore are very supportive of the arbitration processes and so intervene less. It is believed that SIAC arbitration institution makes constant effort to perfect their regulations and is carefully designed to protect the fundamentals of international arbitration such as party autonomy, competence principle, limited procedural steps, reasonable fees structure and many more. SIAC focuses more on providing a better mechanism for better and fast resolution of the dispute[43].

CONCLUSION

It was once said by William Ewart Gladstone that “Justice delayed is justice denied”. When we consider the case of India, ADR was developed here in order to lessen the burden of court and to expedite the resolution of the dispute. The Arbitration Act, 1940 had certain loopholes and so Arbitration Act, 1996 was introduced but it is still seen that there are some defect in the implementation of the ADR in India and that could become an obstacle to the successful resolution of the dispute which could only be solved once the issue is analyzed properly. The Act indian Act of the arbitration lack the basic infrastructure and the legal module of resolving the disputes through an online mode even though the techno legal centre of excellence had launched the online dispute resolution in India, the beta version of the ODR platform which was to help in resolving of the disputes online for the national and the international stakeholders, it is seen that due to the lack of the proper legal statute in India the laws are not being followed by the e-commerce website as a result of which the consumers suffer. The Indian ODR platform lacks the basics for resolving disputes online.[44] The primary issue being the disposal of the cases in time and without it being hindered by the differences and the two main factors for this being lack of decision making power within the officials and the understanding that it could get shifted or may face the vigilance proceedings. There is also an issue in respect of merging of the international and the domestic legal system of arbitration and equal standard to be applied to both the systems and to also see that the domestic legal arbitration is in consonance with the international arbitration system. In India due to the unwillingness of the parties, counsel and the courts appoint arbitrator outside the horizon of the retired judges which has led to the arbitration being conducted like that of the court system, so, in order to avoid this the parties are left with no other option but to choose from the limited number of the competent arbitrators who tend to be little expensive[45] whereas when we talk about SIAC, it is seen that the parties are given freedom to choose arbitrators of their choice and if they are unable to appoint arbitrator of their choice the president has the discretion to appoint an arbitrator.[46] SIAC’s main focus is to provide justice and so it makes an effort almost every year to better their regulation and has explicitly made regulations even with regards to the minor issues. The parties consider SIAC over any other institution as it is reasonable in regards to the administration charges and its decision is not influenced by the factors cultural, social background or the emotional sentiments and disposes off the cases very swiftly.[47]Even though they have been implemented under the same arena it is due to all the issues that is being faced by the parties while resolving the issue in India has caused SIAC to be better that the Indian implementation of arbitration and so the implementation of ADR by SIAC is way better when compared to implementation done by India.


REFERENCES

  1. Anubhav Pandey, All you need to know about Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), All you need to know about Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – iPleaders

  2. Dr, Nandkishor K. Remake, Challenges Before ADR( Alternate Dispute Resolution) Mechanism in India, Challenges before ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Mechanism in India | Zenodo.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Tiwari, O.P, THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT WITH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2-4 (4Th Ed.(2005) Reprint 2007).
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075.
  9. Food corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal, (1981) 2SCC 349.
  10. 3 Pasayat Arijit, Dr. J., Arbitration and court harmony amidst disharmony, NYAYA DEEP, Issue: 4th Oct. 2007, pp. 36-37.
  11. Dixit Sujoy, Alternative dispute resolution mechanism, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/224/ADR-Mechanism-in-India.html.
  12. Dr. Avtar singh, LAW OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION(INCLUDING ADR SYSTEM) 393, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 7th edition(2006).
  13. Ibid.
  14. Dixit Sujoy, Alternative dispute resolution mechanism, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/224/ADR-Mechanism-in-India.html.
  15. Deshmukh Raosaheb Dilip, J.” Efficacy Of Alternative Disputes Resolution Mechanisms In Reducing Arrears Of Cases”,NYAYA DEEP, 10, pp. 26-27 (2010).
  16. Dr. Avtar singh, LAW OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION(INCLUDING ADR SYSTEM) 394, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 7th edition(2006).
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ramakrishnan K, J. Scope Of Alternative Dispute In India, 2005 (1) JV, pp. 1-2.
  19. Dr. Avtar singh, LAW OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION(INCLUDING ADR SYSTEM) 397 Para 6, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 7th edition(2006).
  20. Singh, Dr. Avtar; Law of Arbitration and Conciliation (including ADR Systems), Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 7th Edition(2006), p. 397
  21. Ibid.
  22. Ibid.
  23. V. Karthyaeni ; Bhatt Vidhi, “Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalats- A Scope for Judicial Review: A Critical Study”,Lok Adalats And Permanent Lok Adalats – Judicial Review – Lok Adalat Procedure – Finality of Lok Adalat award (legalserviceindia.com).
  24. (23) (DOC) ORIGIN OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN INDIA | Advct Dutta – Academia.edu, p. 25.
  25. Dr. Avtar Singh; LAW OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (INCLUDING ADR SYSTEM), Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 7th Edition (2006), pp. 394- 395.
  26. Sharad Mishra, Justice Dispensation through ADR Systems in India, Justice Dispensation Through Alternate Dispute Resolution System In India – Legal News / Law News & Articles – Free Legal Helpline – Legal Tips : Legal India.
  27. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India, https://www.fdrindia.org/old/publications/AlternativeDisputeResolution_PR.pdf.
  28. F.S. Nariman, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 45, 1st ed.(1997) .
  29. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India, https://www.fdrindia.org/old/publications/AlternativeDisputeResolution_PR.pdf.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India, https://www.fdrindia.org/old/publications/AlternativeDisputeResolution_PR.pd
  33. Frank E.A. Sander ; Stephen B. Goldberg, FITTING THE FORUM TO THE FUSS 338, 1st ed. (1997).
  34. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India, https://www.fdrindia.org/old/publications/AlternativeDisputeResolution_PR.pdf.
  35. Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India, https://www.fdrindia.org/old/publications/AlternativeDisputeResolution_PR.pdf.
  36. (23) (DOC) ORIGIN OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN INDIA | Advct Dutta – Academia.edu.
  37. Why Siac, Singapore International Arbitration Centre | Why SIAC.
  38. STA Law Firm, Singapore: Singapore International Arbitration Centre, MONDAQ, Singapore International Arbitration Centre – Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration – Singapore (mondaq.com),
  39. Supra note 37.
  40. SIAC,What are the advantages of resolving disputes by arbitration? (siac.org.sg).
  41. Ibid.
  42. Supra note 37.
  43. Ibid.
  44. Gautam Matani, The Need of ADR and ODR system in India with a Comparative Analysis with the United Kingdom, INDIAN LEGAL SOLUTION, The need of ADR and ODR system in India with a comparative analysis with The United Kingdom. – Indian Legal Solution.
  45. Bibek Debroy; Suparna Jain, Strengthening Arbitration and its Enforcement in India- Resolve in India,Arbitration.pdf (niti.gov.in).
  46. SIAC, Singapore International Arbitration Centre | SIAC Rules 2016.
  47. SIAC, (siac.org.sg).

What's your reaction?

Excited
0
Happy
0
In Love
0
Not Sure
0
Silly
0

You may also like

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments