ADR Assignment

Gurugram University, Sector 51
Gurugram, Haryana
Topic : Evolution of ADR and IS Advantage and Disadvantage
Name : Shubham
Roll No. 201090880023
Submitted to : Mr. Avinash Sir
Subject :Alternate Dispute Resolution System
Subject code : LBC-604

INDEX
1. Introduction
2. Meaning
3. Overview
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution in India
5. Advantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India
6. Benefits of Non-Conventional Dispute Resolution
7. Disadvantages of ADR
8. Conclusion
Introduction :
Dispute resolution outside of courts is not new; societies world-over have long
used non-judicial, indigenous methods to resolve conflicts. What is new is the
extensive promotion and proliferation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
models, wider use of court-connected ADR, and the increasing use of ADR as a
tool to realize goals broader than the settlement of specific disputes.
Alternate Dispute Resolution system is not a new experience for the people of this
country also. It has been prevalent in India since time immemorial. Legal history
indicates that down the ages man has been experimenting with procedure for
making it easy, cheap, unfailing and convenient to obtain justice.[1] Procedure for
justice is indicative of the social consciousness of the people. Anywhere law is a
measuring rod of the progress of the community.
Ancient system of dispute resolution made a considerable contribution, in reaching

resolution of disputes relating to family, social groups and also minor disputes
relating to trade and property. Village level institutions played the leading role,
where disputes were resolved by elders, comprising Council of Village[2], which
was an informal way of mediation. In earlier days disputes hardly reached courts.
Decisions given by the elderly council were respected by all. But subsequently
boon accompanied bane, the very system lost its impression due to intervention of
political and communal elements.
Meaning:
Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) refers to any method of resolving

disputes without litigation. ADR regroups all processes and techniques of conflict
resolution that occur outside of any governmental authority. The most famous
ADR methods are the following: mediation, arbitration, conciliation, negotiation,
and transaction.
All ADR methods have common characteristics – i.e., enabling the parties to find
admissible solutions to their conflicts outside of traditional legal / court
proceedings, but are governed by different rules. For instance, in negotiation there
is no third party who intervenes to help the parties reach an agreement, unlike in
mediation and conciliation, where the purpose of the third party is to promote an
amicable agreement between the parties. In arbitration, the third party (an arbitrator
or several arbitrators) will play an important role as it will render
an arbitration award that will be binding on the parties. In comparison, in
conciliation and mediation, the third party does not impose any binding decision.
If all the ADR methods are different, they should not be compared and confronted
because in practice, the parties combine the use of these different ADRs. For
instance, the parties may stipulate in their contracts that in the event of a dispute
they will first submit to an attempt at amicable settlement (conciliation/mediation)
and only in the event of failure will they resort to a judicial method of settlement,
which may be arbitration or recourse to the State justice system. ADRs therefore
come into play at different levels and have a complementary character.
The main advantages of ADR are rapidity, confidentiality and flexibility.
Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will
rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a valid
contract to abide by them.
Overview
Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") refers to any means of settling disputes
outside of the courtroom. ADR typically includes early neutral evaluation,
negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. As burgeoning court queues,
rising costs of litigation, and time delays continue to plague litigants, more states
have begun experimenting with ADR programs. Some of these programs are
voluntary; others are mandatory.
Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

It is Necessary because of the Heavy Caseload in the Courts. There has been a
dramatic increase in the number of cases filed in Indian courts in recent years,
leading to pendency and delays and underscoring the need for alternate dispute
resolution techniques. In light of these concerns, on December 4, 1993, the then-
Prime Minister of India and the then-Chief Justice of India convened a conference
in New Delhi at which the Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of the States adopted
a Resolution.
It read: “The heads of government and the highest judges agreed that the courts
couldn’t handle everything and that some conflicts were better suited to being
settled through arbitration, mediation, or negotiation. They stressed the value of
parties to a disagreement using alternative dispute resolution, which can provide
procedural flexibility, save time and money, and reduce the emotional and mental
strain of going to trial “.
There is no better option than to work toward developing alternative modes of
dispute resolution (ADR) by establishing facilities for providing settlement of
disputes through arbitration, conciliation, mediation, and neo-arbitration in a
developing country like India with major economic reforms underway within the
framework of the rule of law.
Advantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

With so many cases pending in Indian courts, ADR has become increasingly
important in the country.
1. In order to alleviate the workload of the Indian judicial system, the country’s
alternative dispute resolution process employs tried and true methods backed by
science.
2. Arbitration, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, and lok Adalat are only few of the
alternative dispute resolution methods available through ADR. In this context,
negotiation refers to parties engaging in mutual self-counseling in an effort to
resolve the disagreement; nevertheless, this method is not recognized by Indian
law.
3. Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee everyone the same protections under the law
and the right to life and liberty, are also the cornerstones of ADR.
4. Motivated by a desire to uphold the preamble’s ideals of social, economic, and
political fairness, ADR seeks to resolve disputes amicably and keep the society it
serves intact.
5. Equal justice and the right to free legal representation guaranteed by Article 39-A,
Directive Principle of State Policy, are two additional goals of alternative dispute
resolution (DPSP).
6. Alternative dispute resolution has been effective in reducing the backlog of cases
at all judicial levels –
7. Over the course of the last three years, Lok Adalats have closed more than 50 lakh
cases annually on average.
The availability of such mechanisms, however, appears to be poorly known.

Important Provisions Related To ADR
1. Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that opportunity to the
people, if it appears to court there exist elements of settlement outside the court
then court formulate the terms of the possible settlement and refer the same for:
Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation or Lok Adalat.
2. The Acts which deals with Alternative Dispute Resolution are
3. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and,
4. The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Benefits of Non-Conventional Dispute Resolution
1. Faster Dispute Resolution: Unlike Legal Proceedings, Most Cases Can Be Heard
and Decided in a Single Day
2. Less expensive than going via the court system, which can cost a lot of money.
3. Disputes are settled in an environment free of the formalities of the judicial system,
using only informal means.
4. In this society, people are not punished for expressing their opinions. In other
words, they can tell you the truth even if they don’t have to in court.
5. Quick and easy: when both parties may air their grievances on the same page, the
possibilities of mending fences are increased.
Disadvantages of ADR
1. There is no guaranteed resolution

The alternative resolution process does not always lead to a resolution.
This means that the parties could invest time and money in trying to resolve the
dispute out of court and still end up having to proceed with litigation and trial
before a judge and jury.
2. Decisions are final

With few exceptions such as fraud, the decision of a neutral arbitration cannot be
appealed against. On the other hand, decisions of a court usually can be appealed
on a variety of legal grounds.
3. Limit on Awards
There is no equivalent of s.66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (which provides that an
award made by the tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement may be enforced
in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect) enabling
ADR awards to be enforced as if they were court judgment.
However, the awards are not so easily enforceable.
Arbitrations mostly resolve disputes that involve money. They cannot issue orders
compelling one party to do something, or refrain from doing something; hence,
they cannot give injunctions.
4. Facts may not be fully disclosed

Because there is no equivalent of disclosure in arbitration as in litigation, there is a
risk that the parties may resolve a dispute without knowing all the facts, which may
lead to a wrong decision.
For example most businessmen, however, believed that a quick decision is better
than wasting time and money on a dispute in order to get a correct decision.
5. ADR is not for all cases

Alternative dispute resolution is not appropriate where a client needs an injunction,
where there is no dispute to resolve and where the client needs a ruling on a point
of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ADR is a fantastic method of obtaining justice. Reasons for the
success of ADR include its low cost, speed, expertise, accessibility, ability to
mediate conflicts amicably, lack of formality, lack of adversariality, and low cost.
Any disagreement can be solved by following the effective procedures outlined in
Alternative Dispute Resolution. This is due to the fact that ADR methods have not
yielded any workable answers to date. Reason being, in ADR both parties can ask
a neutral third party to mediate their dispute instead of going to court themselves. It
is recommended that both parties consult an expert, who is generally a lawyer. It is
also necessary that the parties agree to be legally bound by this judgment. Because
ADR focuses on resolving disputes through communication and compromise rather
than litigation, it often results in positive interactions with customers. Using ADR,
parties can avoid going to court to settle their differences. Every ruling the judge
makes will only inflame tensions between the two sides. This is due to the fact that
ADR methods, and particularly conciliation, tend to be somewhat forceful. This is
because ADR is more proactive and offers suggestions for how to resolve the
conflict. Therefore, there is no doubt that ADR is a simple way to get justice for
settling any disagreement that may arise.

ADR Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADR Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gurugram University, Sector 51

Topic : Evolution of ADR and IS Advantage and Disadvantage

Roll No. 201090880023

Submitted to : Mr. Avinash Sir

Subject :Alternate Dispute Resolution System

Subject code : LBC-604

Ancient system of dispute resolution made a considerable contribution, in reaching

Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) refers to any method of resolving

Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

Advantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

The availability of such mechanisms, however, appears to be poorly known.

Benefits of Non-Conventional Dispute Resolution

1. There is no guaranteed resolution

2. Decisions are final

However, the awards are not so easily enforceable.

4. Facts may not be fully disclosed

5. ADR is not for all cases

You might also like