Introduction It is now widely acknowledge that our litigation system requires drastic spring-cleaning.

This is not to minimise the role our courts, especially the superior courts, play in the promotion of the rule of law. Generally speaking, except litigants who stand to gain by delaying the process of justice. Others do not perhaps enjoy taking recourse to litigation that consumes innumerable number of years and considerable amounts by way of expenses. We have no other choice but to vigorously and quickly devise effective alternatives options to litigation to ease the present weight of judicial business. Of course, India is not the only country which is buffeted by arrears of court cases. The USA and, following its inspiration, several countries, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom have been using over the last 20 years or so what is popularly known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that encouraged the disputants to arrive at a negotiated understanding with minimum of outside help. The primary object of ADR movement is avoidance of vexation, expenses and delay and promotion of the ideal of access of justice for all. In other words, the ADR system seeks to provide cheap, simple quick and accessible justice.

It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps the justice alive. LJ Earl Warren

What is ADR? Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) typically refers to processes and techniques of resolving disputes that fall outside of the judicial process (formal litigation court). Some courts now require some parties to utilize ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties cases to be tried. ADR is generally classified into at least four subtypes: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well but it can be considered under mediation itself.

The Concept & its efficacy The concept of Conflict Management through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has introduced a new mechanism of dispute resolution that is non adversarial. A dispute is basically lis inter partes and the justice dispensation system in India has found an alternative to Adversarial litigation in the form of ADR Mechanism. New methods of dispute resolution such as ADR facilitate parties to deal with the underlying issues in dispute in a more cost-effective manner and with increased efficacy. In addition, these processes have the advantage of providing parties with the opportunity to reduce hostility, regain a sense of control, gain acceptance of the outcome, resolve conflict in a peaceful manner, and achieve a greater sense of justice in each individual case. The resolution of disputes takes place usually in private and is more viable, economic, and efficient. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism has proven to be one the most efficacious mechanisms to resolve commercial disputes of an international nature. Transcending national boundaries it renders proportionate judgements over the merchants disputes, as the Law Merchants of Medieval ages rendered justice in light of fair price, good commerce, and equity. Infact the Law merchant precepts have been reaffirmed in new international mercantile law. Visualizing the participatory nature of such laws the ADR method is also formulated in the similar vein. Benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Cost: One of the largest reasons parties choose to resolve their disputes outside of the courts is cost. Alternative dispute resolution usually costs much less than litigation, allowing smaller financial disputes a financially viable way to be settled. Speed: ADR can be scheduled by the parties and the panelist as soon as they are able to meet. Compared to the court process, where waits of 2-3 years are normal, dispute resolution is as fast as the parties want it to be. Control: The parties control some of the process; selecting what method of ADR they want to follow, selecting the panelist for their dispute resolution; the length of the process; and, in a mediations case, even the outcome. Opposed to the court system, where the legal system and the judge control every aspect, ADR is much more flexible.

Confidentiality: Disputes resolved in court are public and any judgments awarded are also public. Mediation, arbitration, and mini trials are all conducted in private and in strict confidentiality. Experienced Neutral Panelists: Our panelists are professional mediators and arbitrators with training and expertise in dispute resolution and insurance. Disputing parties are able to select their panelist from a list of qualified individuals who are specialized in specific aspects of insurance. In the court system, binding decisions are made by judges who may lack expertise in insurance practices. Cooperative Approach: All ADR services take place in a more informal, less confrontational atmosphere. This is more conducive to maintaining a positive business relationship between the two parties. With mediation, specifically, the result is a collaboration between the two parties.

ADR Procedures ADR procedures can be broadly divided into two categories namely, adjudicatory and non adjudicatory.[1] The adjudicatory procedures such as arbitration and binding expert determination lead to a binding ruling that decides the case. The non-adjudicatory procedures contribute to resolution of disputes by agreement of the parties without adjudication such as Negotiation, Mediation and Conciliation. Mediation is different from Conciliation only in that in the former the neutral third party plays a more active role in putting forward his own suggestions for the settlement of the dispute. A brief description of few ADR procedures widely used is as follows: Negotiation : A non-binding procedure in which discussions between the parties are initiated without the intervention of any third party with the object of arriving at a negotiated settlement of the dispute. Conciliation Mediation: A non-binding procedure in which an impartial third party, the conciliator/mediator, assists the parties to a dispute in reaching a mutually satisfactory and agreed settlement of the dispute. Med-Arb: A procedure which combines sequentially conciliation/Mediation and where the dispute is not settled through conciliation/mediation within a period of time agreed in advance by the parties, arbitration. MEDOLA : A procedure in which if the parties fail to reach an agreement through mediation, a neutral person, who may be the original mediator or an arbitrator, will select between the final negotiated offers of parties such selection being binding on the parties. Mini-Trial : A non binding procedure in which the disputing parties are presented with summaries of their cases to enable them to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and prospects of their case and then an opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the assistance of a neutral adviser. Arbitration: A procedure in which the dispute is submitted to an arbitral tribunal which makes a decision (an `award) on the dispute that is binding on the parties. Fast track Arbitration: A form of arbitration in which the arbitration procedure is rendered in a particularly short time and at reduced cost. Neutral listener Agreement: Parties to a dispute discuss their respective best settlement offer in confidence with a neutral third party who, after his own evaluation, suggests settlements to assist the parties to attempt a negotiated settlement. Rent a judge: Disputing parties mutually approach a referee, usually a retired judge, before whom they present their case in informal proceedings. The referee judge gives his decision which is enforceable in a court of law. The fee of the referee is paid by the parties. Final offer arbitration: Each party submits its monetary claim before a panel that renders its decision by awarding one and rejecting the other claim.

Types and features of alternative dispute resolution[2] ADR is generally classified into at least four types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law and arbitration. (Sometimes a fifth type, conciliation, is included as well, but for present purposes it can be regarded as a form of mediation. ADR can be used alongside existing legal systems such as Sharia Courts within Common Law jurisdictions such as the UK. ADR traditions vary somewhat by country and culture. There are significant common elements which justify a main topic, and each country or regions difference should be delegated to sub-pages.

ADR or Alternative Dispute Resolution is of two historic types. First, methods for resolving disputes outside of the official judicial mechanisms. Second, informal methods attached to or pendant to official judicial mechanisms. There are in addition free-standing and or independent methods, such as mediation programs and ombuds offices within organizations. The methods are similar, whether or not they are pendant, and generally use similar tool or skill sets, which are basically sub-sets of the skills of negotiation. ADR includes informal tribunals, informal mediative processes, formal tribunals and formal mediative processes. The classic formal tribunal forms of ADR are arbitration (both binding and advisory or non-binding) and private judges (either sitting alone, on panels or over summary jury trials). The classic formal mediative process is referral for mediation before a court appointed mediator or mediation panel. Structured transformative mediation as used by the U.S. Postal Service is a formal process. Classic informal methods include social processes, referrals to non-formal authorities (such as a respected member of a trade or social group) and intercession. The major differences between formal and informal processes are (a) pendency to a court procedure and (b) the possession or lack of a formal structure for the application of the procedure. For example, freeform negotiation is merely the use of the tools without any process. Negotiation within a labour arbitration setting is the use of the tools within a highly formalized and controlled setting. Calling upon an organizational ombudsmans office is never a formal procedure. (Calling upon an organizational ombudsman is always voluntary; by the International Ombudsman Association Standards of practice, no one can be compelled to use an ombuds office.) Informal referral to a co-worker known to help people work out issues is an informal procedure. Co-worker interventions are usually informal. Conceptualizing ADR in this way makes it easy to avoid confusing tools and methods (does negotiation once a law suit is filed cease to be ADR? If it is a tool, then the question is the wrong question) (is mediation ADR unless a court orders it? If you look at court orders and similar things as formalism, then the answer is clear: court annexed mediation is merely a formal ADR process). Dividing lines in ADR processes are often provider driven rather than consumer driven. Educated consumers will often choose to use many different options depending on the needs and circumstances that they face. Finally, it is important to realize that conflict resolution is one major goal of all the ADR processes. If a process leads to resolution, it is a dispute resolution process. The salient features of each type are as follows: 1. In negotiation, participation is voluntary and there is no third party who facilitates the resolution process or imposes a resolution. (NB a third party like a chaplain or organizational ombudsperson or social worker or a skilled friend may be coaching one or both of the parties behind the scene, a process called Helping People Help Themselves see Helping People Help Themselves, in Negotiation Journal July 1990, pp. 239248, which includes a section on helping someone draft a letter to someone who is perceived to have wronged them.) 2. In mediation, there is a third party, a mediator, who facilitates the resolution process (and may even suggest a resolution, typically known as a mediators proposal), but does not impose a resolution on the parties. In some countries (for example like United Kingdom, ADR is synonymous with what is generally referred to as mediation in other countries.[3] 3. In collaborative law or collaborative divorce, each party has an attorney who facilitates the resolution process within specifically contracted terms. The parties reach agreement with support of the attorneys (who are trained in the process) and mutually-agreed experts. No one imposes a resolution on the parties. However, the process is a formalized process that is part of the litigation and court system. Rather than being an Alternative Resolution methodology it is a litigation variant that happens to rely on ADR like attitudes and processes. 4. In arbitration, participation is typically voluntary, and there is a third party who, as a private judge, imposes a resolution. Arbitrations often occur because parties to contracts agree that any future dispute concerning the agreement will be resolved by arbitration. This is known as a Scott Avery Clause. In recent years, the

enforceability of arbitration clauses, particularly in the context of consumer agreements (e.g., credit card agreements), has drawn scrutiny from courts. Although parties may appeal arbitration outcomes to courts, such appeals face an exacting standard of review. Beyond the basic types of alternative dispute resolutions there are other different forms of ADR:

Case evaluation: a non-binding process in which parties present the facts and the issues to a neutral case evaluator who advises the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and assesses how the dispute is likely to be decided by a jury or other adjudicator.

Early neutral evaluation: a process that takes place soon after a case has been filed in court. The case is referred to an expert who is asked to provide a balanced and neutral evaluation of the dispute. The evaluation of the expert can assist the parties in assessing their case and may influence them towards a settlement.

Family group conference: a meeting between members of a family and members of their extended related group. At this meeting (or often a series of meetings) the family becomes involved in learning skills for interaction and in making a plan to stop the abuse or other ill-treatment between its members.

Neutral fact-finding: a process where a neutral third party, selected either by the disputing parties or by the court, investigates an issue and reports or testifies in court. The neutral fact-finding process is particularly useful for resolving complex scientific and factual disputes.

Ombuds: third party selected by an institution for example a university, hospital, corporation or government agency to deal with complaints by employees, clients or constituents.

An organizational ombudsman works within the institution to look into complaints independently and impartially. Alternative dispute resolution is usually considered to be alternative to litigation. It also can be used as a colloquialism for allowing a dispute to drop or as an alternative to violence.

Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 Prior to commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the law of Arbitration in India was contained in three enactments: the 1937 Act, the 1940 Act and the 1961 Act. The Act consolidates and amends the law relating to arbitration in India. The Indian courts have noted the widespread abuse of arbitral processes in recent years and underlined the need for evolving effective safeguards to arrest such abuses. The Supreme Court observed: The Supreme Court of India has interpreted arbitration as judging of a dispute between parties or groups of people by someone not involved in the dispute and whose decision both party agree to accept.[4]

Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive court procedures impelled jurist to search for an alternative forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of a disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940(Act for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the act are conducted and without an exception challenged in courts , has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceeding under the Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. In formal forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the courts been clothed with legalese of unforeseeable complexity.[5]
The Act: Form And Content

The Act contains 85 sections, besides the preamble and three Schedules. The Act is divided into four parts. Part I contains general provisions on arbitrations. Part II deals with enforcement of certain foreign awards. Part III deals with conciliation. Part IV contains certain supplementary provisions. The Preamble to the act explaining the bases of the proposed legislation. The three schedules reproduce the texts of the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, 1923, and the New York Convention on the Recognition and enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, respectively. Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.- (1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

Lok Adalat Equal justice for all is a cardinal principle on which entire system of administration of justice is based. Government of India is committed to legal aid. The restructuring of the judicial system forms part of an effective legal services programme as it tends to include every form of legal assistance which brings justice nearer to the people, particularly to the rural people. The poor and disadvantaged are cut off from the legal system by reason of its expensiveness and dilatoriness and also because of the nature of the legal and judicial system. One of the strategic legal aid programmes adopted by the committee for implementing legal aid schemes (CILAS), constituted by the Government of India with Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati as its chairman in September, 1980, pertains to holding of Lok Adalats for settlement disputes through conciliation. The Lok Adalats are an innovative form of voluntary efforts for amicable settlement of disputes between the parties.[6] These at are not akin to regularly constituted law courts and are to supplement and not to supplant the existing adjudicatory machinery. One of the most aspect of Lok Adalat is that it provides speedy and inexpensive justice at the very door-steps of the people. History of Lok Adalat Movement The Lok Adalat movement was started in Gujarat in March, 1982 and the first Lok Adalat the Lok Adalat programme was adopted by other states such as, Andhra Pradesh, Assam Kerala, Madhya Pradesh , Assam , etc. Millions of acres of land situated on 117 villages in Kurnool and Mehboobnagar districts of Andhra Pradesh were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1974. 40,000 families were uprooted for the submersion in constructing Hydro Electric project at Srisailam. Their cases for twenty years for payment of compensation were settled in a Lok Adalat. Compensation to the tune of 1510 million rupees was paid to the claimants on April 2, 1994 in the presence of the Prime Minister of India who participated in Lok Adalat at Nandikotkur. This is a illustrative of high magnitude, many more cases of smaller magnitude were decided in the Lok Adalats organised in different parts of the country.

The Lok Adalats are being organised by the State Legal Aid and Advice Boards at different places in the country and have become popular for post- litigation settlements and as a supplementary forum for resolution of disputes, especially among the rural poor. The decision arrived at the Lok Adalats become enforceable after they are endorsed by the concerned courts or competent courts in respect of such cases.

Types of Cases taken up at the Lok Adalats: Initially, civil, revenue and criminal disputes were taken up by the Lok Adalats. With the success of Lok Adalats in bringing about such settlement of such disputes and the cooperation extended by the Chairman of the General Insurance Corporation of India, the CILAS requested the State Legal Aid and Advice Boards to take up motor accident compensation claims cases also at Lok Adalats. This has resulted in settlement of a large number of long pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases which would have otherwise taken years for adjudication. In addition, Lok Adalats are taking up cases involving mutation of lands, land pattas, forest lands, bonded labour, land acquisition cases, matrimonial and family disputes and bank loan cases, etc.[7] Guidelines for organising Lok Adalats: Lok Adalats are being regularly organised primarily by the State legal Aid and Advice Boards with the help of District Legal Aid and Advice Committees. However some of the Lok Adalats are also being sponsored by voluntary legal aid agencies, law colleges or bar associations. Lok Adalats are manned by experienced and talented persons who are ordinarily drawn from retired judges, public spirited lawyers and persons, and law teachers selected on the basis of their reputation in the community, professional integrity and aptitude for social work. The Legal Aid Boards draw up panels for each district in consultation with each state High Court and District Court judges as well as bar associations. The required number of judges (conciliators) for the Lok Adalats organised in the district may be invited from amongst those included in the panel. Apart from the judges, the key personnel for the Lok Adalats also include the Para- legals, social activists, the local administration officials and the members of the bar and the bench. Lok Adalats panels are rendering social service without remuneration. The procedure of the Lok Adalats is informal, flexible and non controversial although it has some degree of uniformity in approaching and motivating in order to ensure minimum standards of fairness and justice. The spirit behind Lok Adalats is live and let live; give and take. There is neither a victor nor a vanquish in the cases settled through Lok Adalats. Lok Adalats is, thus, a non judicial, organised primarily by judiciary as a forum for conciliation and adjudication involving little cost and no delay with an informal procedure conforming only to the requirements of natural justice, where the key note is justice rather than law. In fact , the whole emphasis in the proceedings is on conciliation and settlement rather than adjudication, and, as such, the Lok Adalats becomes an instrument to prevent frustration.

Finance: Expenditure on Lok Adalats is kept to the minimum incurred normally on the publicity, organisational expenses and refreshments. At times, sponsorors explore the possibility of seeking the cooperation of voluntary social agencies for meeting the overhead costs.

Position of Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Special status has been assigned to the Lok Adalats under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which has come into force with effect from 9th November 1995.[8] The said Act provides the statutory base to the Lok Adalats. The Lok Adalat shall have: i) ii) The same powers as are vested in a civil court under code of civil procedure, 1908. All proceedings before a Lok Adalats shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of

sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian penal Code. iii) Every Lok Adalats shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of

the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 iv) The members of the Lok Adalats, in terms of the provisions of section 23 of the Act, shall be deemed to be

public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, and v) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final, binding and non-appealable.

Lok Adalats under the Act shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of: i) ii) Any case pending before; or Any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok

Adalat is organised. The Lok Adalats shall, however, have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Now, dispute can be referred to Lok Adalats by a) b) c) Mutual consent At the request of one of the parties By the Court suo moto

So, even private cases can be referred to and decided by Lok Adalats. The National Legal Services Authority consists of Chief Justice of India as Patron-in-chief; a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court as Executive Chairman and a Committee constituted by Chief Justice of India. Equally, in each state, Chief Justice of the High Court is Patron-in-chief; a sitting or retired High Court judge is Executive Chairman and committee in that behalf. In each district there is a District Authority presided over by the Principal district Judge and a Committee. At Taluk or Mandals, a Committee would be constituted with a Principal Subordinate Officer as Chairman. Thus, the Lok Adalat system is now uniform and court oriented programme. Both types of cases, that is, pre-legislative cases as well as post-legislative cases can be brought before the Lok Adalats, it would be seen, are court-oriented programmes as supplement ADR to the regular trial procedure. The Act provides incentive with regard to refund of court fee initially paid at the time of the case, if the case is eventually settled through the Lok Adalats.[9] Legal Position of ADR in India

The first footsteps towards taking resort to alternate methods of dispute resolution in India be traced back as early as The Bengal Regulation Act,1772 and The Act,1781 where arbitrators decision was deemed a decree final unless proved to be erroneous.The can Second Law Commission by Sir Charleswood first provide for a uniform law regarding

Regulation

arbitration. The Code of Civil Procedure was then enacted accordingly in 1859.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 also recognizes arbitration agreement as an exception to Section
28, which envisages that any agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is void. Later, the

Arbitration Act, 1899 was also enacted to apply only to presidency towns to facilitate
settlement of disputes out of court.

The following is a brief overview of the Acts vis-a-vis ADR in India[10]

Section Overview

Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 12 Section 1314 Section 1617 Section 1830 Section 31 Section 3233 Section 34

Relates to arbitration agreement. When parties should move to court. Interim measures. No. of arbitrators to be appointed. Procedure of appointment of arbitrators. Challenge of Arbitrator.

Jurisdiction of Arbitrator.

Conduct of Proceedings

Awards Correction of Award.

Recourse Against Reward.

International Scenario A brief look at the international scenario of ADR Mechanism reveals the popularity of its usage in various countries. The seeds of ADR in the UK can be traced to the work of the advisory, conciliation and arbitration service which was formed in 1974.In China and Japan mediation was used as primary means of conflict resolution. The Chinese principle was the influence of Confucian view of harmony and dispute resolution by morals rather than coercion. Informal dispute resolution was used in many cultures of the world including India, Africa and Israel. The General Assembly, in its resolution dated 11th December 1985 recommended that all the states should adopt UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial arbitration. India being a member country, has adopted the UNCITAL Model Law[11] In Japan, Judges intervene extensively during the in-court settlement; every Japanese Judge is expected, both by law and by litigants, to move a case towards settlement. This has the force of statutory law. At least 40% of the cases are settled. The Judge, who decides to switch the litigation to a settlement mode, takes off his robe and acts as mediator. In 1976, Rosco Pound Conference was held to commemorate the anniversary of his dissertation on Public dissatisfaction with the American Legal system. It was this conference that the current ADR movement actually started in America and now these methods are so successful that nearly 93% of the civil disputes are settled outside the courts. Even in Europe, mediation is seen as a potentially promising mechanism for the resolution of both simple and complex disputes. In 1995, France expanded the legislative basis for judicial conciliation and mediation. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, most probably the largest arbitration service centre in Asia, has held the view arbitration as compared to litigation has become very popular for resolving the disputes. Similarly, conciliation and mediation find an increasing measure of support in future. Increased awareness of ADR is the need of the hour As per data provided by the Registry of Supreme Court of India, as on 31.10.2006, more than 2, 53, 80,757 cases were pending in our subordinate Courts. The figure of pending adjudication is indeed staggering. To deal with these cases, we have less than 15000 judges and judicial officers in the country. The ratio of judge per million populations in India is the lowest in the world. The Law Commission of India in its 20th Report examined the problem of under-staffing of the judiciary. The Commission found that India has 10.5 judges per million populations; the corresponding figure in England was 50.9, Australia 57.7, Canada 75.2 and the U.S.A. 107. The main reason of delay in disposal of cases is inadequate judge-population ratio. Awareness of ADR through seminars, workshops and other means and its supervised and systematic implementation should be encouraged so that its effectiveness is proved and the message reaches a large section of population. Also, apart from a good law that provides for resolution of disputes, it is rudimentary to extend or create facilities, services, and infrastructure that shall enable the implementation of such rules and lead to effective ADR practice. Effective coordination both at operational and structural level is a prerequisite of any successful ADR mechanism. Pre-trial conciliation and fixing the targets for dispensation of justice are imperative for successful implementation of any ADR mechanism. Proper training of the Mediators, Negotiators, and Conciliators should be a mandatory requirement for the understanding of the disputes/ cases and its efficient handling. The specialized firms or organizations are certainly more promising and reliable in this sphere and people choose to consult them and engage their services for dispute resolution. There are some important organizations making significant contribution in promoting ADR services in India which need a special mention herein namely ICA and ICADR, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Bengal Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The Indian Council for Arbitration (ICA) established on April 15, 1965 provides arbitration facilities for all types of domestic and international commercial disputes and conciliation of international trade complaints received from Indian and foreign parties, for non performance of contracts or noncompliance with arbitration awards. It maintains comprehensive international panel of arbitrators with eminent and experienced persons from different lines of trade and professions for facilitating choice of arbitrators. The council has launched on internet a special web site called COMLAWNET to provide information on

arbitration and commercial laws. We need more organizations such as the ICA, ICC and FICCI that render specialized services and promote ADR. One would agree that these organizations have a vital role to play in resolving disputes, in particular, commercial disputes across the globe!

Conclusion As is said in the practical philosophy of law that lawyers are what their cases have made them, so goes the addendum that a legal system is venerated as it has been handled and managed in course of time. Then only a legacy is left for the future to find it sufficiently germane to be accepted as a proposition of inheritance. The law and legal system should appeal the reasons of people, is not a legal principle but a common sense observation of fact. It is this spirit that has led to the evolution of ADR Mechanisms for the dispensation of justice with efficacy and steadfastness Awareness of ADR through seminars, workshops and other means and its supervised and systematic implementation should be encouraged so that its effectiveness is proved and the message reaches a large section of populi. Also, apart from a good law that provides for resolution of disputes, it is rudimentary to extend or create facilities, services, and infrastructure that shall enable the implementation of such rules and lead to effective ADR practice. Effective coordination both at operational and structural level is a prerequisite of any successful ADR mechanism. Pre-trial conciliation and fixing the targets for dispensation of justice are imperative for successful implementation of any ADR mechanism. Proper training of the Mediators, Negotiators, and Conciliators should be a mandatory requirement for the understanding of the disputes/ cases and its efficient handling. The specialized firms or organizations are certainly more promising and reliable in this sphere and people choose to consult them and engage their services for dispute resolution. There are some important organizations making significant contribution in promoting ADR services in India which need a special mention herein namely ICA and ICADR, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Bengal Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The Indian Council for Arbitration (ICA) established on April 15, 1965 provides arbitration facilities for all types of domestic and international commercial disputes and conciliation of international trade complaints received from Indian and foreign parties, for nonperformance of contracts or noncompliance with arbitration awards. It maintains comprehensive international panel of arbitrators with eminent and experienced persons from different lines of trade and professions for facilitating choice of arbitrators. The council has launched on internet a special web site called COMLAWNET to provide information on arbitration and commercial laws. We need more organizations such as the ICA, ICC and FICCI that render specialized services and promote ADR. One would agree that these organizations have a vital role to play in resolving disputes, in particular, commercial disputes across the globe!

[1] Arbitration and ADR by N.V.Paranjpee. [2] www.sathassociates.com [3] Alternative dispute resolution by P.C.Rao. [4] Amar Chand v. Ambika Jute Mills, AIR 1966 SC 1036. [5] M/s Guru Nanak Foundation v. M/s Ratan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, 2076-2077.

[6] Justice K. Ramaswamy: Legal Aid News Letter, December, 1995. [7] Section 20(7), Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. [8] P.N.Bhagwati Committee in Gujarat(1970); V.R. Krishna Iyer sCommittee(1972); Committee for implementing legal aid schemes (CILAS) in 1980 etc. [9] Subsituted by Act 59 of 1994 w.e.f 29.10.1994. [10] Section 312, 313-325 and 326-327 laid down the permission and procedure for arbitration without the courts intervention.

[11] The UNCITRAL Model law of arbitration was designed to meet the need for harmonizing and improving the domestic laws of arbitration which had considerable disparity which created difficulties in resolving International commercial dsputes.

Print this No related posts.

About the author