A PROJECT

ON

DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

SUBJECT NAME: ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

SUPERVISED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

MS. LOVELY JAIN MOKSHADA PUROHIT

FACULTY OF LAW SEMESTER- VIIITH, SECTION-A

S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR
2021 – 2022

1
 CERTIFICATE

DATE – 31.07.2021

This is to certify that MOKSHADA PUROHIT student of B.A.LL.B. FIVE

YEAR INTEGRATED (SEMESTER VIIITH) has prepared this project
entitled “DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
METHODS”. This project is the result of her efforts and endeavours. The
project is found worthy of acceptance as final project report for the subject
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. She has prepared the project
under my guidance.

MS. LOVELY JAIN

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW) SIGNATURE

2
 DECLARATION

Date: 31.07.2021

I hereby declare that the project entitled “DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISPUTE

RESOLUTION METHODS” is submitted by me in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for award of the degree of B.A. LL.B from S.S. Jain Subodh Law
College, Mansarovar, Jaipur. It is a result of my own work and efforts. Any
material used or scripted herein by any other author/researcher/commentator and
used hereinafter has been thoroughly acknowledged. The present work has not
been accepted for any degree, and is also not being currently submitted for any
other degree.

STUDENT NAME
Mokshada Purohit
VIIIth semester
Section - A

3
 ACKNOWLEGDEMENT

A research work of such great scope and precision could never have been possible
without great co-operation from all sides. Contributions of various people have
resulted in this effort. Firstly, I would like to thank God for the knowledge he has
bestowed upon me. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank MS.
LOVELY JAIN without whose valuable support and guidance, this project would
have been impossible. I would like to thank the library staff for having put up with
my persistent queries and having helped me out with the voluminous materials
needed for this work. I would also like to thank my seniors for having guided me
and culminate this acknowledgement by thanking my friends for having kept the
flame of competition burning, which spurred me on through these days. And
finally my parents, who have been a support to me throughout my life and has
helped me, guided me to perform my best in all interests of my life, and all my
elders who have always inculcated the best of their qualities in me.

STUDENT NAME
Mokshada Purohit
VIIIth semester
Section – A

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….…..06
2. IMPORTANCE OF ADR IN INDIA…………………………………….………08
3. MAIN METHODS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION……………………………..08
4. OTHER METHODS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION…………………………..13
5. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………..…..15
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………...….16

5
 DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS

INTRODUCTION

Indian judiciary is one of the oldest judicial system, a world-renowned fact but nowadays it is
also well-known fact that Indian judiciary is becoming inefficient to deal with pending cases,
Indian courts are clogged with long unsettled cases. The scenario is that even after setting up
more than a thousand fast track Courts that already settled millions of cases the problem is far
from being solved as pending cases are still piling up. To deal with such a situation Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) can be helpful mechanism, it resolves conflict in a peaceful manner
where the outcome is accepted by both the parties.

The concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is capable of providing a

substitute to the conventional methods of resolving disputes. ADR offers to resolve all type of
matters including civil, commercial, industrial and family etc., where people are not being able to
start any type of negotiation and reach the settlement. Generally, ADR uses neutral third party
who helps the parties to communicate, discuss the differences and resolve the dispute. It is a
method which enables individuals and group to maintain co-operation, social order and provides
opportunity to reduce hostility.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is designed to settle disputes outside of the courtroom with
the help of an impartial third party. This path is generally accessible after efforts between the
client and the insurer to resolve any differences between themselves fails and reaches an
impasse. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, in an insurance sense, a number of disparate
processes used by companies to resolve claims and contractual disputes. Insured clients who are
denied a claim are offered this course of action as a form of recourse. It is employed to avoid
expensive and time-consuming litigation and arbitration.1

Alternative dispute resolution is the term for methods used to resolve disputes without trial in a
traditional law court. Parties may seek ADR services like services before going to court or the
court may require that they attempt ADR before litigation. 
1
National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, ADR Terminology: A Discussion Paper (2002).

6
Dispute resolution is an indispensable process for making social life peaceful. Dispute resolution
process tries to resolve and check conflicts, which enables persons and group to maintain co-
operation. It can thus be alleged that it is the sin qua non of social life and security of the social
order, without which it may be difficult for the individuals to carry on the life together.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used to describe several different modes of
resolving legal disputes. It is experienced by the business world as well as common men that it is
impracticable for many individuals to file law suits and get timely justice.

The Courts are backlogged with dockets resulting in delay of year or more for the parties to have
their cases heard and decided. To solve this problem of delayed justice ADR Mechanism has
been developed in response thereof. Alternative dispute redessal method are being increasingly
acknowledged in field of law and commercial sectors both at National and International levels.
Its diverse methods can helps the parties to resolve their disputes at their own terms cheaply and
expeditiously.

Alternative dispute redressal techniques are in addition to the Courts in character. Alternative
dispute redressal techniques can be used in almost all contentious matters, which are capable of
being resolved, under law, by agreement between the parties. Alternative dispute redressal
techniques can be employed in several categories of disputes, especially civil, commercial,
industrial and family disputes.

Form the study of the different alternative dispute redressal techniques in the proceedings
chapters it is found that, alternative dispute redressal methods offers the best solution in respect
of commercial disputes where the economic growth of the Country rests. The goal of Alternative
dispute redressal is enshrined in the Indian Constitution’s preamble itself, which enjoins the
state: “to secure to all the citizens of India, justice-social, economic and political-liberty, equality
and fraternity”.

IMPORTANCE OF ADR IN INDIA

To deal with the situation of pendency of cases in courts of India, ADR plays a significant role in
India by its diverse techniques. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism provides
scientifically developed techniques to Indian judiciary which helps in reducing the burden on the
courts. ADR provides various modes of settlement including, arbitration, conciliation, mediation,
7
negotiation and lok Adalat. Here, negotiation means self-counseling between the parties to
resolve their dispute but it doesn’t have any statutory recognition in India. ADR is also founded
on such fundamental rights, article 14 and 21 which deals with equality before law and right to
life and personal liberty respectively. ADR’s motive is to provide social-economic and political
justice and maintain integrity in the society enshrined in the preamble. ADR also strive to
achieve equal justice and free legal aid provided under article 39-A relating to
Directive Principle of State Policy(DPSP).2

Thus, the five different methods of ADR can be summarized as follows: -

1. Arbitration

2. Conciliation

3. Mediation

4. Judicial Settlement &

5. Lok Adalat

1. ARBITRATION:

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of
disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons –
arbitrators, by whose decision they agree to be bound. It is a resolution technique in which a
third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for
both sides and enforceable.

There are limited rights of review and appeal of Arbitration awards. Arbitration is not the same
as judicial proceedings and Mediation. Arbitration can be either voluntary or mandatory. Of
course, mandatory Arbitration can only come from s statute or from a contract that is voluntarily
entered into, where the parties agree to hold all existing or future disputes to arbitration, without
necessarily knowing, specifically, what disputes will ever occur.

2
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/~davidb/bl-5a.html.

8
The advantages of Arbitration can be summarized as follows: -

a) It is often faster than litigation in Court.

b) It can be cheaper and more flexible for businesses.

c) Arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally nonpublic, and can be made
confidential.

d) In arbitral proceedings the language of arbitration may be chosen, whereas in judicial

proceedings the official language of the competent Court will be automatically applied.

e) There are very limited avenues for appeal of an arbitral award.

f) When the subject matter of the dispute is highly technical, arbitrators with an appropriate
degree of expertise can be appointed as one cannot choose judge in litigation.

In view of provisions of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the matter is referred to the
Arbitration then the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will govern the
case.

2. CONCILIATION:

Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution process whereby the parties to a dispute use a
conciliator, who meets with the parties separately in order to resolve their differences. They do
this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting issues, providing technical
assistance, exploring potential solutions and bring about a negotiated settlement. It differs from
Arbitration in that. Conciliation is a voluntary proceeding, where the parties involved are free to
agree and attempt to resolve their dispute by conciliation. The process is flexible, allowing
parties to define the time, structure and content of the conciliation proceedings. These
proceedings are rarely public. They are interest-based, as the conciliator will when proposing a
settlement, not only take into account the parties' legal positions, but also their; commercial,
financial and /or personal interests.

The terms conciliation and mediation are interchangeable in the Indian context. Conciliation is a
voluntary process whereby the conciliator, a trained and qualified neutral, facilitates negotiations

9
between disputing parties and assists them in understanding their conflicts at issue and their
interests in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement. Conciliation involves discussions
among the parties and the conciliator with an aim to explore sustainable and equitable resolutions
by targeting the existent issues involved in the dispute and creating options for a settlement that
are acceptable to all parties. The conciliator does not decide for the parties, but strives to support
them in generating options in order to find a solution that is compatible to both parties. The
process is risk free and not binding on the parties till they arrive at and sign the agreement. Once
a solution is reached between the disputing parties before a conciliator, the agreement had the
effect of an arbitration award and is legally tenable in any court in the country.

The following types of disputes are usually conducive for conciliation:

Commercial, Financial, Family, Real Estate, Employment, Intellectual Property, Insolvency,

Insurance, Service, Partnerships, Environmental And Product Liability.

Apart from commercial transactions, the mechanism of Conciliation is also adopted for settling
various types of disputes such as labour disputes, service matters, antitrust matters, consumer
protection, taxation, excise etc.

3. MEDIATION:

Now, worldwide mediation settlement is a voluntary and informal process of resolution of

disputes. It is a simple, voluntary, party centered and structured negotiation process, where a
neutral third party assists the parties in amicably resolving their disputes by using specified
communication and negotiation techniques.

Mediation is a process where it is controlled by the parties themselves. The mediator only acts as
a facilitator in helping the parties to reach a negotiated settlement of their dispute. The mediator
makes no decisions and does not impose his view of what a fair settlement should be. In the
mediation process, each side meets with a experienced neutral mediator. The session begins with
each side describing the problem and the resolution they desire – from their point of view. Once
each sides’ respective positions are aired, the mediator then separates them into private rooms,
beginning a process of “Caucus Meeting” and thereafter “joint meetings with the parties”.

10
The end product is the agreement of both the sides. The mediator has no power to dictate his
decision over the party. There is a win – win situation in the mediation.

The chief advantages of the mediation are : -

1. The agreement which is that of the parties themselves;

2. The dispute is quickly resolved without great stress and expenditure;

3. The relationship between the parties are preserved; and

4. The confidentiality is maintained.

4. JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT:

Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code also refers to the Judicial Settlement as one of the mode
of alternative dispute resolution. Of course, there are no specified rules framed so far for such
settlement. However, the term Judicial Settlement is defined in Section 89 of the Code. Of
course, it has been provided therein that when there is a Judicial Settlement the provisions of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 will apply.

It means that in a Judicial Settlement the concerned Judge tries to settle the dispute between the
parties amicably. If at the instance of judiciary any amicable settlement is resorted to and arrived
at in the given case then such settlement will be deemed to be decree within the meaning of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that every award of the Lok
Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court.

There are no written guidelines prescribed in India as to judicial settlement. But in America,
ethics requiring judicial settlement has been enumerated by Goldschmidt and Milford.

The following are guidelines for judicial settlement ethics:

1. Separation of Functions.

2. Impartiality and Disqualification.

11
3. Conference Management.

4. Setting Ground Rules on Issues Such as Confidentiality, Disclosure and Ex Parte

Communications.

5. Focusing the Discussions.

6. Guiding or Influencing the Settlement.

7. Sanctions or Other Penalties Against Settlement Conference Participants.

5. LOK ADALAT:

The concept that is gaining popularity is that of Lok Adalats or people’s courts as established by
the government to settle disputes through conciliation and compromise. It is a judicial institution
and a dispute settlement agency developed by the people themselves for social justice based on
settlement or compromise reached through systematic negotiations.

The first Lok Adalats was held in Una aim the Junagadh district of Gujarat State as far back as
1982. Lok Adalats accept even cases pending in the regular courts within their jurisdiction.
Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code also provides as to referring the pending Civil disputes to
the Lok Adalat. When the matter is referred to the Lok Adalat then the provisions of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 will apply. So far as the holding of Lok Adalat is concerned,
Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The Lok Adalat is presided over by a sitting or retired judicial officer as the chairman, with two
other members, usually a lawyer and a social worker. There is no court fee, thus making it
available to those who are the financially vulnerable section of society. In case the fee is already
paid, the same is refunded if the dispute is settled at the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat are not as
strictly bound by rules of procedure like ordinary courts and thus the process is more easily
understood even by the uneducated or less educated. The parties to a dispute can interact directly
with the presiding officer, which is not possible in the case of normal court proceedings.

Lok Adalat are not necessarily alternatives to the existing courts but rather only supplementary to
them. They are essentially win-win systems, an alternative to ‘Judicial Justice’, where all the

12
parties to the dispute have something to gain. There are certain hybrids of Alternative Dispute
Resolution that also deserve a mention.

These processes have evolved in combination of various Alternative Dispute Resolution

mechanisms with the ultimate objective of achieving a voluntary settlement. The purpose of
many of these hybrids is that the principle objective of achieving a settlement is kept in mind and
all permutations and combinations should be utilized towards that objective to reduce the burden
of the adjudicatory process in courts. The different Alternative Dispute Resolution processes and
their hybrids have found solutions to different nature of disputes and thus the knowledge of these
processes can be a significant aid.

Some other methods of dispute resolution -

Negotiation:

Negotiation is a type of ADR which is generally referred to initially in case of a dispute and it
covers all methods of ADR. This type of ADR aims for the parties to settle the dispute between
the same by negotiating and deliberating with each other with the attendance of their attorneys if
needed, without intervention of any third party.3

Negotiation is a kind of ADR method that each party tries to obtain a benefit for themselves at
the end of the process by persuading the other party to act in the way the former desires.

Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE):

Early Neutral Evaluation is a method which is mostly used in the beginning of the dispute. In
ENE, to enable the concerned parties to render a decision regarding the procedure necessary for
resolution of the dispute via providing information by an experienced and objective third party to
the parties of the dispute.

Fact-Finding Method:

3
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/3/management.html).

13
Fact-finding is a research method that aims to determine and clarify the dispute. Even if the
dispute cannot be resolved with this method, it has its own complementary role for the other
alternative dispute resolution methods such as arbitration, mediation etc.

When the parties have an uncompromising attitude, the fact-finder becomes a part of the dispute
and prepares a comprehensive report indicating negative prospects of the dispute for the parties.
In this method, generally, as fact-finder, an attorney, experienced in the legal field the dispute is
related to, is appointed.

MED-ARB:

Med-Arb method is a combination of mediation and arbitration that aims to resolve the dispute
via arbitration when the dispute between the parties cannot be resolved via mediation. This
method is applied to when the rapid resolution of the dispute is sought.

CONCLUSION

We are all familiar with the most traditional dispute-resolution process of our civil justice
system: litigation and trial with a judge or jury deciding who is right or wrong - where someone
wins and someone loses. However, there are many other options available. Negotiation,

14
mediation and arbitration - often called ADR or alternative dispute resolution- are the most well-
known.

Whether you are involved in a family or neighborhood dispute or a lawsuit involving thousands
of dollars, these processes should be considered. They are often the more appropriate methods of
dispute resolution and can result in a fair, just, reasonable answer for both you and the other
party. Settlement and compromise have long been favored in the legal system. In fact, most cases
that are filed in a court do settle. Only five percent of all cases filed go to trial. ADR procedures
are excellent options for you in dealing with controversy, allowing you to reach resolution earlier
and with less expense than traditional litigation. In fact, many courts require parties to consider
some form of ADR before going to trial. The following processes describe ways to resolve
disputes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, ADR Terminology: A

Discussion Paper (2002).

15
2. Federal Judicial Centre, Background Papers of Mediation Skills Workshop For U.S.
District And Magistrate Judges (2002)
3. “Law of Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution” Chartered Secretary (July
2002).
4. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/bp/3/management.html).
5. http://www.law.uts.edu.au/~davidb/bl-5a.html.
6. P.M. Bakshi, “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (Vol.1 Part 2) Amity Law Review 43

16