ALTERNATE DISPUTE

RESOLUTION
WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIZE ON
LOK ADALAT AND
MEDIATION
Presenter
Ms. Chitra Shekhawat & Er. Roshan Nazareth
SYLLB Students
KLE COLLEGE OF LAW , KALAMBOLI
14/10/2020
WHY ADR?

 WHY ADR supposed to be

added in Legal Aid discourse?
ARTICLE 39A
 Article 39A: The State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes
justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and
shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by
suitable legislation or schemes or in any
other way, to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.
LEGAL AID
 Often Legal Aid cases are referred to either
Court Annexed Mediation or Lok Adalat.
 Lack of legal literacy could lead undue
advantage to one party.
 Third parties could take advantages of lack
of legal literacy.
CLASSIFICATION OF DISPUTE
RESOLUTION MECHANISMS
 Dispute resolution mechanisms are broadly
classified in to two types,
 Right based dispute resolution
 Interest based dispute resolution.
 DIFFERENCES
Right based dispute resolution Interest based dispute
resolution

The dispute shall be The dispute shall be

resolved on the basis of resolved through the
who is right and who is interest of respective
wrong. parties in which, all
disputants will satisfy on
the resolution outcome.

The disputants can seek The parties can expand

certain remedies as the pye and they come
specified up with new
solutions/option which
is legal and ensure the
benefits of both parties.
TYPES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PROCESS/MECHANISMS
 Litigation
 Arbitration
 Mediation
Conciliation
Lok Adalat
 Negotiation
 Power
 Avoidance
DEFINITIONS
 When a dispute arise,- (ex: dispute between
company-employer/distributor/customer)
 Power- Use power to force the other side to
meet our demands.
 Rights- Allow a judge or arbitrator to decide
whether we are right.
 Avoidance- Give in to the other side.
 Interests- Negotiate an agreement based on
our underlying interests.
  Part I
 Lok Adalat
DEFINITION/MEANING
 Lok Adalat means “people’s court”. Lok
Adalat included conciliation and negotiation
methods together for the resolution of
disputes. In Lok Adalat, the retired or sitting
judge will help the parties to come with
settlement.
SECTION 18-22
 Section 19: Lok Adalat is supposed to preside over
one judicial member (who is a sitting judge or
retired judge) and other members (who has
experience in the legal field or who is a social
activist).
 Section 20: Lok Adalats can hear the pending
cases or the cases which otherwise capable of
heard by the court. However, Lok Adalats cannot
hear the cases which are related to non-
compoundable offenses. Upon the request of both
parties or upon the application of the one-party or
on its own motion the court may refer the pending
case to Lok Adalat.
 Section 20: procedure for unsettled cases
 If the Lok Adalat is unable to settle the referred case
then, it must send back the case to the same court
for further hearings.
 If there is no settlement on the dispute which has
reached the Lok Adalat at the first instance then, Lok
Adalat must advise the parties to approach
appropriate court for getting their remedies.
 Section 21: Lok Adalat Award:
 Lok Adalat cannot decide the case on merits; it
facilitates the parties to come with settlement. Lok
Adalat can pass an award on the basis of settlement
of the parties and Lok Adalat’s award become final
and binding the parties. There is no appeal.
 Section 22: nature of Lok Adalat
Lok Adalat is considered as “Civil Court”.
KEY ASPECTS TO BE
CONSIDERED
 Nature of Referral
 Whether the court suomoto or at the request
of one of the parties, could refer the dispute
to Lok Adalat or not
 Venkatesh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
 “a Court can suo-moto or at the request of
even one of the parties, refer the case to the
Lok Adalat..”
 Section 89 of CPC: expressly permit court to
refer cases.
 Appeal ability of Lok Adalat Awards
 State of Punjab &Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh,
(2008)
 “…If any party wants to challenge such an
award based on settlement, it can be done
only by filing a petition under Article 226
and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that
too on very limited grounds…”
 Bharvagi Constructions v KothakapuMuthyam
Reddy (2017)
 The plaintiffs had filed declaratory suit for
challenging the Lok Adalat award was illegal.
The additional district judge had rejected the
plaint on the ground that this suit was impliedly
barred by Law under order 7, rules 11(d) of CPC
and asked the plaintiffs to approach High Court
under 226/227
 AP HC ordered fresh Adjudication.
 SC asked the aggrieved party to file writ under
article 226 &227.
 Nature of the Lok Adalat’s award especially if the
dispute is of criminal nature
 when a criminal case has been referred to Lok Adalat
by the criminal court and the Lok Adalat has passed an
award then, whether that award is considered as a
decree of civil court or not.
 When the criminal court has referred the matter to Lok
Adalat and the dispute got resolved through Lok Adalat
award then, what is the role of the criminal court
which has referred that case?
 What is the remedy available to the Lok Adalat award
holder when the other party fails to comply with the
terms of the award especially if the award is arising out
of a criminal case?
 K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon vs C.D. Shaji
 Whether the magistrate court’s referral of a
case which falls under section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act and the award passed by the
Lok Adalat is considered as Decree of the civil
court and executable by the civil court or not.
 Court of Execution had refused to enforce the
award. HC also upheld the same view.
 Supreme Court directed the Munsif Court
(execution court) to execution petition and
proceed further.
 Obligations of the Lok Adalat
 Lok Adalat should not be used for resolving
the dispute in an unequal manner
 the disputes should not be resolved because
of speedy disposal alone; the Lok Adalat
award must be reasonable.
 Manju Gupta vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
 the Allahabad High Court Had taken suo moto
cognizance of an award passed by Lok Adalat on an
apparent error and grave injustice in a motor vehicle
claim. In this case, a 3 years old child was met with
an accident and suffered some permanent disability.
The child’s father made a claim of 2,20,000 before
the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal. The matter was
referred to Lok Adalat for its settlement. Finally,
the Lok Adalat passed the claim of 30,000 on the
basis of the settlement agreement between the
parties. Later, this award was criticized because of
non-meritorious and grave injustice to the claimant.
 High Court found that the learned 4th
Additional District Judge was the presiding
judge of the claim petition as well as the Lok
Adalat proceedings and he had failed to
taken care of the legal obligation enshrined
under order 32, rule 7 that the court must
ensure that minor’s interest should be
protected. The High Court further observed
that the compensation amount (30,000) was
not adequate for a minor child. The High
Court had enhanced the compensation as
1,10,000.
PERMANENT LOK ADALAT:
 Section 22A & 22B
 the disputes relating to public utility services
like transportation, electricity, postal
services, telecommunication services,
hospital, and dispensary services. Section
22A and 22B of Legal Services Authorities Act
gives the powers to union government as well
as state government to include any other
services as “Public Utility Services” through
notification.
 Whenever a dispute is brought before the
Permanent Lok Adalat then, the other forum
cannot hear the same case until the time Lok
Adalat completes its proceedings.
 However, Permanent Lok Adalat cannot hear
the public utility services related disputes if
the pecuniary value of the dispute exceeds
INR 10 Lakhs.
 At the first instance, Permanent Lok Adalat
must try to resolve the case through
conciliation; if there is no settlement then,
it can pass an award on the merits of the
case.
 Permanent Lok Adalat’s award is considered
as a decree of the court and it is final and
binding upon the parties.
 However, if there is any grave injustice then,
the award of permanent Lok Adalat can be
challenged before the constitutional courts.
 United India Insurance Co. Ltd v Ajay Sinha
 An insurance policy had covered burglary risk of a
Godown. The insured asked the insurer to compensate
for his loss caused by burglary. However, the insurer
repudiated the claim on the reason that the insured
might have involved in the burglary.
 Consumer forum had refused to hear the claim.
 The insured approached permanent Lok Adalat for
resolving his insurance claim dispute. The PLA had
passed an award in favour of the insured. The insurer
had challenged this award before the High Court. The
single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court had
taken different views. Later, this case had reached to
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that the
Permanent Lok Adalat had passed the award beyond
its jurisdiction
  Part II
 Mediation
LEGAL PROVISIONS ON
MEDIATION
 The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 23
 The Family Courts Act 1984, s 9 & s 19
 The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division
and Commercial Appellate Division Of High
Courts (Amendment) Act 2018 s 12 A
DEFINITION/MEANING
 mediation means any structured process,
however named or referred to, whereby two
or more parties to a dispute attempt by
themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an
agreement on the settlement of their dispute
with the assistance of a third person called
mediator
STAGES OF MEDIATION

 Introduction and opening statement of the

mediator
 Joint Session
 Individual (Separate) Session
 Closing
BENEFITS OF MEDIATION
 Focuses on the future rather than the rights
and wrongs of the parties.
 Eliminates the risk of litigation.
 Save time and cost of disputants.
 Eases tension and restores peace of mind.
 Creates a win-win situation amongst
disputants.
 Based on the role of mediator
 Facilitative
 Evaluative
 Transformative
 Based on the appointment & control
 Community mediation
 Private mediation
 Court annexed mediation
COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION
 In Court-Annexed Mediation the mediation
services are provided by the court as a part
and parcel of the same judicial system as
against Court-Referred Mediation, wherein
the court merely refers the matter to a
mediator.
 TYPES OF MEDIATION
Court annexed mediation Private mediation

The court shall provide the The private person provides the
service
mediation services

It is considered as part and parcel of It is not considered as part of the

the judicial system. judicial system.

The mediators may be a judicial Any person can be a private

officer or an advocate. mediator.

The mediator might have completed

The mediator must have completed
mediation training from any
MCPC training. renowned institution.
 DISPUTES WHICH CAN BE REFERRED TO
MEDIATION
(AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE CASE)
 All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts,
 disputes arising out of contracts(including all money suits
 disputes relating to specific performance
 disputes between suppliers and customers
 disputes between bankers and customers
 disputes between developers/builders and customers
 disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees
 disputes between insurer and insured
 All cases arising from strained or soured relationships,
including
 disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance,
custody of children
 disputes relating to partition/division among family
members/coparceners/co owners
 disputes relating to partnership among partners
 All cases where there is a need for continuation
of the pre-existing relationship in spite of the
disputes, including
 disputes between neighbours ( relating to
easementary rights, encroachments, nuisance, etc.)
 disputes between employers and employees
 disputes among members of
societies/associations/apartment owners'
associations
 All cases relating to tortious liability, including
 claims for compensation in motor
accidents/other accidents
 All consumer disputes
 CASES WHICH CANNOT BE
REFERRED TO MEDIATION
 Representative suits under Order I Rule 8 CPC which
involve public interest or interest of numerous persons
who are not parties before the court.
 Disputes relating to election to public offices.
 Cases involving grant of authority by the court after
enquiry, as for example, suits for grant of probate or
letters of administration.
 Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud,
fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation,
coercion, etc.
 Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example,
claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and
suits for declaration of title against the Government.
 Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences.
IMPORTANT CASES
 Moti Ram(D) Tr.Lrs.& Anr Vs Ashok Kumar &
Anr On 7 December, 2010
 “Mediation proceedings are totally confidential
proceeding. This is unlike proceedings in Court which
are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the
mediation succeeds, by both the parties to the Court
without mentioning what transpired during the
mediation proceedings. If the mediation is
unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write
one sentence in his report and send it to the Court
stating that the 'Mediation has been unsuccessful'.
Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything
which was discussed, proposed or done during the
mediation proceedings.”
 Mrsrama Aggarwal vs Department Of Legal
Affairs on 8 August, 2015
 RTI petitioner had asked the authorities to
furnished the status of the mediation
proceedings including the exchange of
documents between herself and her husband.
“The national Information commission held that
Information regarding negotiation, mediation,
conciliation and counseling will fall under
exempted clause of information given in fiduciary
capacity and also private/personal information of
other spouse and hence shall not be disclosed.”
 K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa
 at the earliest stage that is when the dispute is
taken up by the Family Court or by the court of
first instance for hearing, it must be referred to
mediation centres.
 Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana
 “a compromise entered into between the parties
cannot be construed as a leading factor based on
which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is
a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence
against the society and is not a matter to be left
for the parties to compromise and settle.”
 State of M.P Vs Madanlal
 “dignity of a woman is a part of her non-
perishable and immortal self’ and ruled that
courts should not fall for the subterfuge of a
rapist to corner the traumatized victim into a
compromise, or even worse, enter into wedlock
with him. “
 The trial court Judge had rejected the
compromise application on the ground that the
offence was not compoundable. however,
Madhya Pradesh High Court had considered the
compromise agreement between the parties and
ordered for the dissolution of the criminal case.
THANKS MAHESH SIR
 SPECIAL THANKS TO MY FELLOW
STUDENTS..YOUR TIMELY PARTICIPATION
HELPS!!
 OUR MANAGEMENT FOR GIVING US A
PLATFORM
 AND MOS IMPORTANT PRINCIPAL DINKAR
GITTE SIR