Adr Nov 21 Simulation

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ADR NOV 21 SIMULATION
Administrative Law (Osmania University)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXCERCISES.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
INDEX
S. No CONTENTS PAGE No.

01 SIMULATION EXERCISE ON “ARBITRATION”
[THREE VERSIONS]
02 SIMULATION EXERCISE ON “CONCILIATION”
[AMANTHA and CHAITANYA ]
03 SIMULATION EXERCISE ON “LAK ADALAT”
[FLAT OWNERS and ASHOKA CONSTRUCTIONS]
04 SIMULATION EXERCISE ON “MEDIATION”
[ST OF KARNATAKA and KRISHNA W B ]
05 SIMULATION EXERCISE ON “NEGOTIATION”
[TATA AIRWAYS and GOVT OF INDIA]

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
INDEX
S. No CONTENTS PAGE No.

OBSERVATIONS IN FAMILY COURT
AND
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
COURT OBSERVATIONS
01 CASE NO OP/1735/2016
KANGALA BABU RAO AND VEDASRI
02 CASE NO – OP/816/2013
RAJAMPETA PAVAN KUMAR
AND
GUNDU SANGEETHA ALIAS RAJAMPETA SANGEETHA
03 CASE NO – OP/1409/2016
HABEEB IMRAN
AND
HUDA FATIMA
04 CASE NO OP/953/2017
A.SRIDHAR
AND
Smt. JYOTHSNA
05 CASE NO – MC/295/2013
Dr T.SHASHIKALA
AND
KIRAN KUMAR
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
I [NAME] have prepared this record on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Practical under
Paper IV under the guidance of our faculty [FACULTY NAME]. He/She is well acquainted with
the Practices and Procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution in doing this record.
This record contains FIVE Simulation exercises and observations made on Court visit to
Family Court and Legal Services Authority.
Therefore, I am thankful to the Principal of our College [ COLLEGE NAME] [PRINCIPAL NAME]
for his/her encouragement in preparing this record.
NAME:
HALL TICKET NO:

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXERCISE No.1
ON BEHALF OF DAVID WARNER

SIMULATION EXERCISE IN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
DAVID WARNER PETITIONER
And
SRH RESPONDENT
FACTS OF THE CASE
1)BCCI held auction for T20 players from all over the world, for which auction was held in
the year 2019.
2)Different franchise opted players for 3 years.
3)SRH opted David Warner for 3 years for Rs.5 crores, with an agreement that they can
resolve any dispute through arbitration.
4)In the month of January 2021, Warner quit the team making some allegations on SRH.
5)SRH demands Rs.5 Crores from Warner as a matter of breach of contract.
Both the parties approach the Court of Arbitration.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ARBITRATION PROCESS
Appearance of both the parties before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator finds out the issues.
ISSUES
1) SRH Management demanded Rupees Five Crores from Warner for breach of contract as
compensation, where Warner denies.
2) SRH contends that, Warner quit the game in between for false and unfair allegations.
3) SRH contends that, allegations made by Warner is absolutely unreasonable, illegal and
unlawful for which he had to pay compensation.
JOINT SESSION BY THE ARBITRATOR WITH BOTH PARTIES

Here the Arbitrator puts questions to both the parties
1) WHEN THE DISPUTE ARISES:
The Arbitrator listens to both the parties where both the parties are represented by their
Lawyers.
2) EVIDENCE FROM BOTH THE PARTIES

Separate files and statements of both the parties are recorded by the Arbitrator.
PETITIONER
Submits the case documentation and Agreement Bond regarding the issues.
RESPONDENT
Submits the counter statements and agreements relating to issues.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
3) TRIAL PROCESS
The Arbitrator first questions the Warner’s lawyer.
a) STEPS TAKEN BY THE WARNER.
The Warner have stated about the Clause in Contract to resolve any dispute relating to this
contract in Arbitraton
b) THE ARBITRATOR QUESTIONS RESPONDENT
Why did Warner had denied the allegations made by the SRH regarding the payment of
compensation?
RESPONDENT
The SRH had stated that the Warner’s agreement was agreed to perform for 3 years and in
case of any dispute during performance, then they can refer to arbitration, but not
otherwise.
CROSS EXAMINATION
After the cross-examination conducted by the Arbitrator it was found that to some extent
both the parties were at default.
The SRH did not mentioned about the amount at the initial stage itself and later it suddenly
stated to pay compensation amount of Rs 5,00,00,000/-
Hence, the Arbitrator decided the case as groundless, and stuck down immediately.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ON BEHALF OF SRH
SIMULATION EXERCISE IN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
SRH PETITIONER
And
DAVID WARNER RESPONDENT
FACTS OF THE CASE

1)BCCI held auction for T20 players from all over the world, for which auction was held in
the year 2019.
2)Different franchise opted players for 3 years.
3)SRH opted David Warner for 3 years for Rs.5 crores, with an agreement that they can
resolve any dispute through arbitration.
4)In the month of January 2021, Warner quit the team making some allegations on SRH.
5)SRH demands Rs.5 Crores from Warner as a matter of breach of contract.
Both the parties approach the Court of Arbitration.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ARBITRATION PROCESS
Appearance of both the parties before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator finds out the issues.
ISSUES
1) Warner had made a breach of contract , where Warner denies.
2) Warner quit the game in between for false and unfair allegations, for which he denies.
3) Allegations made by Warner is absolutely unreasonable, illegal and unlawful for which
he had to pay compensation.
JOINT SESSION BY THE ARBITRATOR WITH BOTH PARTIES
Here the Arbitrator puts questions to both the parties

1) WHEN THE DISPUTE ARISES:
The Arbitrator listens to both the parties where both the parties are represented by their
Lawyers.
2) EVIDENCE FROM BOTH THE PARTIES

Separate files and statements of both the parties are recorded by the Arbitrator.
PETITIONER
Submits the case documentation and Agreement Bond regarding the issues.
RESPONDENT
Submits the counter statements and agreements relating to issues.

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
3) TRIAL PROCESS
The Arbitrator first questions the Warner’s lawyer.
a) STEPS TAKEN BY THE SRH.
The SRH have shown the Contract Agreement Bond which reflects only performance
aspects.
b) THE ARBITRATOR QUESTIONS RESPONDENT
Why did Warner had denied the allegations made by the SRH regarding the payment of
compensation?
RESPONDENT
The Warner had stated that the SRH’s agreement was agreed to perform for 3 years and in
case of any dispute during performance, then they can refer to arbitration.
CROSS EXAMINATION
After the cross-examination conducted by the Arbitrator it was found that to some extent
both the parties were at default.
The SRH did not mentioned about the amount at the initial stage itself and later it suddenly
stated to pay compensation amount of Rs 5,00,00,000/-
Hence, the Arbitrator decided the case as groundless, and stuck down immediately.
10

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ARBITRATION AWARD
With the help of the Arbitrator, both the parties arrived at an agreement, that they will
cancel the agreement and enter into new agreement and perform accordingly
Hence the Arbitration Award have been settled between the parties through Arbitration by
a Sole Arbitrator.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
SRH DAVID WARNER
SIGNATURE OF
THE ARBITRATOR
11

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXERCISE IN CONCILIATION
BETWEEN
AMANTHA PETITIONER
And
CHAITANYA RESPONDENT
FACTS OF THE CASE

1.Amantha and Chaitanya married in the year 2017, according to their respective customs.
2.Both of them were leading a happy married life up to 2020.
3. In 2021, some disputes arose between them regarding sharing of income, towards
unnecessary interference of her in-laws and refused to procure children.
4. The matter was put before the Conciliation Officer to resolve the dispute by the Family
Court.
12

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ISSUES
1) Amantha alleged that there is some unnecessary interference of her in-laws in their
personal life.
2) Amantha refused to procure children because of her career developments, which was
denied by Chaitanya.
It is submitted that in the aforesaid petition, after approaching the Family Court, the Court
referred the case for Conciliation.
CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS
Parties accepted for conciliation, to resolve the dispute out of the Court to reduce time and
litigation cost.
As the Conciliator made private sessions with both the parties and tried to make parties
speak on each other’s issues.
ISSUE – I
Amantha pleads that her income is very less and not so affordable to spare money towards
procreation of children
Chaitanya states that his income will be used towards her requirements and also for
savings for future and children.
ISSUE – II
Amantha gives explanation that after saving certain money and making arrangements for
children’s nutrition, growth, education, they can plan for children.
By this both parties realised which step is right for them to take, Conciliators assists in taking
right decisions.
AFTER THE CONCILIATOR ASKS BOTH THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT:
The Petitioner said that she will be giving her share of income to respondent, that it should
be used reasonably and saving is must for future .
Respondent said that he already started savings and made arrangements for children,
which was not aware to petitioner for some communication gap.
13

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
JOINT SESSION
The Conciliator made a settlement between the parties.
FINAL SETTLEMENT
Finally Conciliators made the parties reach to a settlement that both will take equal
responsibility of the family and child and respect each other.
REPORT
The Conciliators made a report on the above case in brief:
The respondent agrees all the wishes of petitioner and apologises for communication gap
made by him by mistake.
Whether both the parties compromised and agreed to withdraw from proceeding?
Yes, both amicably took the responsibility of the family and child and promised to respect
each other.
The parties after Conciliation proceedings settled the dispute by conciliation settlement
agreement.
14

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
CONCILIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The parties agreed to the advice rendered by the Conciliators and reported same to the
Judge.
1) The Petitioner agreed to withdraw the proceedings and to take care of the family and
child.
2) The Respondent also agreed to take equal care of family and child and said that he will
not argue with his wife in future.
The statement of both the parties has been taken without any force and coercion and
parties have voluntarily and wilfully stated.
In witness of Conciliators, by the terms and conditions accepted by the parties. The
Conciliators have submitted this Conciliation Agreement to the Court.
SIGNATURE
AMANTHA
CHAITANYA
15

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXERCISE No.3 – LOK ADALAT

BETWEEN
FLAT OWNER’S ASSOCIATION
AND
ASHOKA CONSTRUCTIONS.
Facts of the Case:
1.Ashoka Constructions developed some flats in Gachibowli.
2.Due to covid and other financial problems they delayed the
construction.
3.The owners of the flats approached City Civil Court for
compensation.
4.The matter was referred to Lok Adalat with consent of parties.
ISSUES RAISED.
1.Whether delay of construction amounts to breach of contract?
2.The cause of delay is whether intentional or accidental?
3.Whether flat owners are entitled to claim compensation?
16

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT JUDGE LOK ADALAT, CITY CIVIL

COURT HELD AT HYDERABAD.
BETWEEN
FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ............................... PETITIONER.
AND
ASHOKA CONSTRUCTIONS .................................. RESPONDENT.
ARGUMENTS
We, the flat owners ofAshoka Constructions, do here by solemnly
affirm as follows –
1.It is respectfully submitted that Petitioner has made payment of
money to the Respondent towards constuctiion of flats at
Gachibowli.
2.It is respectfully submitted that Respondent had entered into an
agreement with the petitioner, that he will complete the work in
six months and deliver the possession also.
3.Whereas, respondent has nat completed the work as agreed and
giving some unlogical areasons of covid and financial problems.
4.Petitioner has approached the respondent for return of money
paid to him, where he refused to do so.
5.Petitioner made several requests to return of money paid to
them but respondent had not turned up.
6.So, in this regard petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money and
payment of compensation in Honourable City Civil Court.
PRAYER:
17

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
It is therefore prayed that, this Honourable Judge of Lok Adalat may

be pleased to grant the redress to the above mentioned facts and
to pass such orders as this Honourable Court thinks may deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.
Date: Sd/-
Place: Petitioner’s Councel.
18

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
Award given by Lok Adalat.

AWARD
As per the above mentioned facts and arguments by both parties,

this Court pronounces that matter to be settled by repaying the
money with compensation by the respondent OR to construct the
flats and deliver the flats possession to the petitioner within six
months from today.
If the respondent fails to serve the order of award, then he will be
subjected to legal and criminal proceedings accordingly.
19

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXERCISE No. 4
SIMULATION EXERCISE ON MEDIATION
BETWEEN
Rep. Of State of Karnataka
And
Krishna Water Board.
FACTS OF THE CASE

1.Krishna Water Board allocated water in between Maharastra and Karnataka in which
Maharastra got 100 tmc and 50 tmc.
2.TThis allocation was not agreed by Karnataka and became a political issue.
3.To solve this problem, The Honourable Supreme Court of India suggested to both the
parties for which is accepted both states for which SC appointed a retired SC Judge.
20

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
APPOINTMENT OF THE MEDIATOR

Both the parties after coming to an understanding to go for mediation, choose Mr Krishna
Murthy as Mediator. Since Mr Krishna Murthy is an advocate, and well known to both the
parties.
ISSUES OF BOTH THE PARTIES
I.ISSUES OF STATE OF KARNATAKA.

The Rep. Of State of Karnataka states that initially Krishna Water Board agreed to provide
100 tmc of water supply to both states Karnataka and Maharastra, later it breached its
promise leading to water scarcity in the state of Karnataka and created a great hindrance
to the government rule, which turned into a political issue, for which Krishna Water Board
is responsible.
II. ISSUES OF KRISHNA WATER BOARD.
It shows some kind of MOU entered by Karnataka that whatever is possible by it, they will
accept it without any objections, and now they are creating a problem.
21

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SESSIONS CONDUCTED BY THE MEDIATOR
INDIVIDUAL SESSIONS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
It accepted all the conditions of MOU, but they made orally clarification that, if sufficient
water i.e. 100 tmc is provided, then no issue takes place but Krishna Water Board have
provided only half of the requiremqnt. If another half is provided then they will withdraw
the case.
KRISHNA WATER BOARD
It is learnt that 50 tmc is sufficient for Karnataka as per the survey report made by
competent authorities, this is only a political issue but not a public issue. Further, it
requested the Karnataka Rep. To go through the survey report once.
22

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
JOINT SESSION
The Mediator has appreciated both the parties as they approached him to resolve their
issues.
The Mediator had started listening to the issues of both the parties i.e., Rep. Of Karnataka
and Krishna Water Board very patiently.
Karnataka Rep. accepted the supply of water after going through the survey report.
Krishna Water Board had accepted all the grievances of State of Karnataka and promised to
provide water, if necessary.
MEDIATOR’S PROPOSAL
After listening to both the parties, the Mediator had made them calm and proposed the
following terms for both the parties.
PROPOSAL TOWARDS STATE OF KARNATAKA.
That Krishna Water Board will continue to supply 50 tmc as per their survey report, if any
addl supply is required, then you can ask to them.
PROPOSAL TOWARDS KRISHNA WATER BOARD.
That State of Karnataka will use the water supplied by you without any wastage, in case of
any addl requirement, you had to meet it.
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT
The parties have amicably understood their problems that were discussed with Mediator
and also accepted for proposals made by the Mediator to resolve the issue.
23

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DATE
PARTIES
REP. OF STATE OF KARNATAKA
And
KRISHNA WATER BOARD
The mediation of above mentioned matter has concluded by mediation settlement

agreement undersigned by parties hereby that agreement is settled on the following terms:
1) That, State of Karnataka will use the water supplied by the Krishna Water Board as
required, not wasting a single drop.
2) That, Krishna Water Board will supply 50 tmc as agreed and also addl in case of any
emergency.
All the terms that are written in mediation settlement agreement are agreed by the parties
with their conscience.
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
REP. OF KARNATAKA MEDIATOR
KRISHNA WATER BOARD
24

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
SIMULATION EXERCISE IN NEGOTIATION
BETWEEN
GOVT OF INDIA PARTY A
AND
TATA AIRWAYS PARTY B
FACTS OF THE CASE

Government of India decided to sell Air India and invited interested companies and
proposed the cost of Airways for Rs.1,20,00,00,00,000. ( Rupees Twelve thousand crores
only ). Tata Airways came forward for Negotiation with Air India.
25

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
NEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS
ISSUES AND DEMANDS OF GOVT OF INDIA {PARTY-A}
ISSUES
Since Govt of India is an authentic and absolute authority, it has every right to sell Air
India at the cost fixed by it which deems to fit and proper in the interest of the nation.
Whereas Tata Airways wants to purchase it by bargaining with Party A which denies.
DEMANDS
- To pay the money in one payment that too Net Cash.
- No time will be provided, when once, agreement is settled.
26

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
ISSUES AND DEMANDS OF TATA AIRWAYS {PARTY B}
ISSUES
Party B requests Party A for bargaining the deal, then, to settle the final amount , where
Party A denies.
DEMANDS
- As a matter of fundamental right to business guaranteed by Constitution of India,
Party B insists Party B to allow bargaining.
- To provide payments through Post dated cheques.
After initial confrontations between both Party A and Party B, they decided to settle the
dispute by way of a negotiation agreement. As per the Negotiation, terms of settlement
arrived at by the parties are as follows:
SETTLEMENT MADE BY PARTY A
To pay the Sale Price in one instalment only either by cash or by cheque.
SETTLEMENT MADE BY PARTY B
To pay the Sale Price by means of Cheque, to take possession after clearance of cheque
followed by Registration process.
27

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
NEGOTIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
In the process of Negotiation, GOVT OF INDIA has agreed to accept Post dated Cheque
from TATA AIRWAYS and to abide with conditions of Negotiation Settlement Order as
agreed.
We, Govt of India and Tata Airways agreed the same and signed on the day [ Day,
DDMMYYYY]
DATED
SIGNED/- [PARTIES]
PARTY A GOVT OF INDIA
PARTY B TATA AIRWAYS
28

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
COURT
OBSERVATIONS
29

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, CITY CIVIL COURT

HYDERABAD
CASE NO: OP/816/2013
BETWEEN
RAJAMPETA PAVAN KUMAR PETITIONER
And
GUNDU SANGEETHA alias RAJAMPETA SANGEETHA RESPONDENT
RESIDING OFFICER
Sri. R. THIRUPATHI
SUBJECT MATTER
DIVORCE
OBSERVATION
The stage of the case was for trial. Petitioner was not present. The Court had adjourned the
case to 26-12-2018.
30

lOMoARcPSD|35012717

HYDERABAD
CASE No.: OP/1409/2016
BETWEEN
HABEEB IMRAN PETITIONER
And
HUDA FATIMA RESPONDENT
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sri. R. THIRUPATHI
SUBJECT MATTER
GUARDIAN AND WARDS
OBSERVATION
The stage of the case was for trial. The Petitioner ready with Prayer and asked for final
hearing. But Respondent was not present along with the 2year old girl child from Vijayawada
before the Court. The Court had directed the Respondent to produce the child on 28-12-2018.
31

lOMoARcPSD|35012717

HYDERABAD
CASE No. : OP/1735/2016
BETWEEN
KANAGALA BABU RAO PETITIONER
And
VEDASRI RESPONDENT
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sri. R. THIRUPATHI
SUBJECT MATTER
DIVORCE
OBSERVATION
The stage of the case was for trial. The Judge had adjourned the case on 29th December 2018.
32

lOMoARcPSD|35012717

HYDERABAD
CASE No.: OP/953/2017
BETWEEN
A. SRIDHAR PETITIONER
And
Smt. JYOTHSNA RESPONDENT
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sri. R. THIRUPATHI
SUBJECT MATTER
DIVORCE
OBSERVATION
The stage of the case is await reports. Petitioner was absent. Respondent’s notice was
returned as house was vacated. Issue fresh notice through Court and Respondent to correct
address on Payment of Process call on 5-1-2019.
33

lOMoARcPSD|35012717

HYDERABAD
CASE No.: MC/295/2013
BETWEEN
Dr. T. SHASHIKALA PETITIONER
And
T. KIRAN KUMAR RESPONDENT
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sri. R. THIRUPATHI
SUBJECT MATTER
MAINTENANCE
OBSERVATION
The stage of the case was to file a counter when the Respondent had paid the Maintenance
of Rs11,500/- to Petitioner by cheques and the balance amount to be paid were Rs 20,000/-.
The Judge asked for filing Memo and ordered the Respondent to file a counter by 28-12-2018
and also to pay the balance amount.
34

lOMoARcPSD|35012717
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, MEDIATION CENTRE OF TELANGANA

STATE
We had a privilege of meeting the Administrative Officer of the Legal Services Authority
Mediation Centre of Telangana State in the premises of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
We were explained the importance and role played by the Legal Services and about the
process of Alternative Dispute Resolution, various methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Such as Negotiation, Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitrations. He also elaborated as on
Mediation and he showed a short film on the Protection of Child Rights.
We are very much inspired with his speech and presentation.
35

Adr Nov 21 Simulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adr Nov 21 Simulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|35012717

ADR NOV 21 SIMULATION

Administrative Law (Osmania University)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

S. No CONTENTS PAGE No.

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

S. No CONTENTS PAGE No.

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SIMULATION EXERCISE No.1

ON BEHALF OF DAVID WARNER

DAVID WARNER PETITIONER

FACTS OF THE CASE

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

JOINT SESSION BY THE ARBITRATOR WITH BOTH PARTIES

2) EVIDENCE FROM BOTH THE PARTIES

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

b) THE ARBITRATOR QUESTIONS RESPONDENT

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

DAVID WARNER RESPONDENT

FACTS OF THE CASE

Both the parties approach the Court of Arbitration.

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

JOINT SESSION BY THE ARBITRATOR WITH BOTH PARTIES

Here the Arbitrator puts questions to both the parties

2) EVIDENCE FROM BOTH THE PARTIES

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

b) THE ARBITRATOR QUESTIONS RESPONDENT

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SRH DAVID WARNER

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SIMULATION EXERCISE No.2

SIMULATION EXERCISE IN CONCILIATION

FACTS OF THE CASE

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

AFTER THE CONCILIATOR ASKS BOTH THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT:

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

The Conciliator made a settlement between the parties.

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

CONCILIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SIMULATION EXERCISE No.3 – LOK ADALAT

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT JUDGE LOK ADALAT, CITY CIVIL

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

It is therefore prayed that, this Honourable Judge of Lok Adalat may

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

Award given by Lok Adalat.

As per the above mentioned facts and arguments by both parties,

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SIMULATION EXERCISE No. 4

SIMULATION EXERCISE ON MEDIATION

Rep. Of State of Karnataka

Krishna Water Board.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

APPOINTMENT OF THE MEDIATOR

ISSUES OF BOTH THE PARTIES

I.ISSUES OF STATE OF KARNATAKA.

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)

SESSIONS CONDUCTED BY THE MEDIATOR

Downloaded by shalini munigonda (ganesh.munigondashalini@gmail.com)