This refers to the article “Taking resolution of disputes seriously” by Kumkum Sen (March 14). That arbitration is time-consuming and, thus, delays settlement is a well-known fact. Also, the determination of rules of procedure is based on the agreed terms and is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But rarely do the parties concerned adopt the alternative approach since lawyers are only interested in making money without putting in much effort. There should be a time-bound programme for submissions and hearings so that relief may be in sight. This can be introduced while the rules of procedure are being determined.
Arbitration is not the only option. Conciliation and mediation are the other alternatives. In meditation, parties decide among themselves with the help of a mediator whose principle task is to bring both parties together to reach an amicable settlement. In some agreements, this sort of clause is incorporated but the mediator is prescribed without taking the other party in confidence, which results in failure of settlement. Similar is the fate of conciliation. Although the conciliator draws the terms of agreement for settlement after holding discussions with both the parties, the client often appoints a conciliator of his choice without factoring in the view of the other party. As a result, disputes remain unresolved. Thus, neither method provides a solution. Moreover, these methods lack statutory sanction for their enforceability. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), under which mini-trials are conducted, is another alternative. It is adopted in many project agreements and is delivering good results. It is, therefore, necessary to closely look into each agreement. The solution should ensure an early settlement of dispute.
Sushil Bakliwal, Jaipur
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
