CCDR LCA: 4

Case Study: A Case Study at Yeka Sub City.

Title: Claims and Counterclaims Raised on Building Construction Project in
Addis Ababa.
By: Yash Rajbhoj, Atish Jadhav, Yash Nimbalkar, Tejas Bhosale, Atharva
Starkar

1. Dispute in overlapping boundary setting.

Claim: Unclear criteria to delineate urban boundaries in Ethiopian

Justification: The study found that there is a lack of clear criteria for delineating urban
boundaries in Ethiopian urban planning, which results in indistinct and overlapping boundary
setting.
Counterclaim: Clear urban boundaries should be delineated using well-defined and permanent
natural and human-made features like mountains, networked green infrastructures, rivers, and
monuments.

2. Dispute in incompatible land uses.

Claim: Non-integrated urban planning trends between urban areas sharing borders amplify
conflicting and incompatible land uses.
Justification: The study highlights that non-integrated urban planning between urban areas
sharing borders leads to conflicting and incompatible land uses.
Counterclaim: It is possible that such trends could contribute to conflicting and incompatible
land uses, leading to delays and inefficiencies in construction projects.

3. Dispute in ecosystem conversion.

Claim: Rapid conversion of ecosystem service
Justification: The study reveals that the indistinct and overlapping boundary setting results in
rapid conversion of ecosystem service providing sites to settlements, conflicts over land
administration, and land ownership insecurity.
Counterclaim: while indistinct and overlapping boundary setting may play a role in
exacerbating these challenges, it is necessary to consider a broader range of factors that
contribute to them.

4. Dispute in urban area management.

Claim: Use of integrated and participatory urban and regional planning concepts
Justification: Policymakers and planners should employ integrated and participatory urban and
regional planning concepts for the effectiveness of urban areas sharing boundaries and
administered by different regions.
Counterclaim: Policymakers and planners should prioritize the use of integrated and
participatory urban and regional planning concepts to effectively manage competing interests and
address the challenges of neighboring urban areas

5. Dispute in overlapping urban boundaries.

Claim: Comprehensive socioeconomic characterization of overlapping urban boundaries
Justification: The study suggests that future research should focus on conducting a
comprehensive socioeconomic characterization of overlapping urban boundaries in the study
region
Counterclaim: policymakers should promote and pave the way for integrated urban planning
trends for urban areas sharing borders.
CCDR LCA: 5
Case Study: A Case Study at Yeka Sub City.
Title: Clauses mentioned in Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 with respect
to role of arbitrator, methodology to be followed on award of dispute.

By: Yash Rajbhoj, Atish Jadhav, Yash Nimbalkar, Tejas Bhosale, Atharva
Starkar

The legal framework for conducting arbitration proceedings in India is established by the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The Act is structured into various parts, with Part I
specifically addressing arbitration. Here are key provisions from the Act detailing the roles of
arbitrators and the prescribed methodology for resolving disputes:

● Arbitrator Appointment (Section 10): This section delineates the process for appointing
arbitrators. Parties can mutually agree on a procedure for this appointment, and in the absence of
such agreement, the Act provides a mechanism for court-appointed arbitrators.

● Challenge Grounds (Section 12): Section 12 outlines the grounds on which challenges to an
arbitrator may be based. These include considerations such as impartiality, independence, or a
lack of agreed-upon qualifications.

● Termination of Mandate and Arbitrator Substitution (Section 14): Section 14 addresses

circumstances leading to the termination of an arbitrator's mandate and the procedures for
substituting an arbitrator.

● Arbitrators' General Duty (Section 18): Arbitrators are obligated under Section 18 to treat
parties equitably, afford each party an opportunity to present its case, and ensure a just and
unbiased resolution of the dispute.

● Procedure and Evidence (Section 19): Providing guidance on proceedings, Section 19

underscores the tribunal's flexibility in adopting appropriate procedures unless parties have
expressly agreed otherwise.

● Award Making and Proceedings Termination (Section 29): This section outlines the process
for creating an arbitral award. The award, required to be in writing and signed by the arbitrators,
must state the reasons on which it is based. Subsequent to the award, the arbitral proceedings
come to a close.
● Correction, Interpretation, and Additional Awards (Sections 33 and 34): These sections
confer authority upon the arbitral tribunal to rectify errors, offer interpretations, or issue
additional awards.

● Form and Contents of Award (Section 31): Section 31 establishes the prerequisites for the
form and content of an arbitral award, including specifying the date and place of arbitration.

Role of Arbitrator in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996:

● The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 defines the role of an arbitrator as conducting the
arbitration proceedings and making decisions on the dispute .
● The arbitrator must act impartially and independently, ensuring equal opportunity for both parties
to present their case .
● The arbitrator has the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, and weight of the evidence
presented .
● The arbitrator can also decide on procedural matters, such as the place and language of the
arbitration proceedings .

Methodology for Awarding Disputes:

● The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 provides flexibility for the arbitrator to determine the
methodology for awarding disputes based on the circumstances of the case .
● The arbitrator may consider factors such as the evidence presented, applicable laws, and
contractual agreements between the parties .
● The award should be based on the merits of the case and provide a fair and equitable resolution to
the dispute .
● The act allows the parties to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitrator in making the
award