You are on page 1of 4

Arbitration Process

File a Claim
A claimant initiates an arbitration by filing a statement of claim that specifies the relevant
facts and remedies requested.
Answer a Claim
A respondent responds to an arbitration claim by filing an answer that specifies the relevant
facts and available defenses to the statement of claim.

Arbitrator Selection
Arbitrator selection is the process in which the parties receive lists of potential arbitrators and
select the panel to hear their case.
Prehearing Conferences
Prior to the hearing, the arbitrators and parties meet telephonically to schedule hearing dates
and resolve preliminary issues.

Discovery
Discovery is the exchange of documents and information in preparation for the hearing.

Hearings
The parties and arbitrators meet in person to conduct the hearing in which the parties present
arguments and evidence in support of their respective cases.

Decision & Awards
After the conclusion of the hearing, the arbitrators deliberate the facts of the case and render
a written decision called an award.

Initiating the arbitration. If your agreement requires you to use one of the large arbitration
associations, the agency helps select the arbitrator, or panel of up to three people for more
complex cases, who will hear and decide the dispute. These agencies usually impose their own
procedural rules and oversee the housekeeping details such as notifying the parties about when
and where to meet.
If no group has been specified, the parties are on their own to administer the proceeding, choose
arbitrators, and set the schedule and rules that will control. Such ad hoc arrangements are often
quicker and less expensive than when an agency is involved, but require a fair amount of
cooperation between the disputing parties, who must agree on important matters, such as which
arbitrator will decide the matter.

although a neutral office or conference center is usually deemed best. The arbitration hearing.for example. a piece of broken or shoddy merchandise if that plays a role in the dispute. Appealing the arbitration decision. such as whether an arbitrator can also decide related claims. or undue influence was used in securing the award   the arbitrator was corrupt or biased the arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing even though there was sufficient cause to delay it. each side has the chance to present his or her version of the conflict. Amicable settlement is a desirable solution for business disputes and differences. In some arbitrations. While one goal of arbitration is to get disputes resolved quickly. fraud. 1996. At the hearing. Most will submit their decisions in writing -. Unlike trials. Arbitrators are free to base their decisions on their own ideas of what is fair and just. mediation and conciliation.from ten days to six months -. but the parties are encouraged instead to write out their theories and evidence in post-hearing briefs. and set out why the arbitrator should rule in his or her favor.sometimes as a simple statement of who won and how much money is due him or her. which are generally confined to courtrooms. arbitrators operate under widely varying deadlines -. there are no closing arguments. Amicable settlement enables the parties to resolve the dispute and bury the past. and location also weigh into the decision. Unlike judges. provides an option to the parties to resort to arbitration or judicial proceedings if they feel a need for the same. usually with a brief opening statement bolstered by evidence such as relevant contracts and other paperwork. explain how it relates to the individual theory of the case. and if it fails then the parties resort to arbitration. preserves the present relationship and paves a better future. It can occur before or during the litigation or arbitration of a dispute and can often be facilitated through the aid of a third party (the ‘Neutral’) in accordance with simple rules of procedure. Amicable settlement denotes the modes of dispute resolution in which the parties retain their freedom to decide the outcome of their dispute. they are not required to follow the law or the reasoning of earlier case decisions. The parties should come to the negotiation table on their own or on the initiative of the mediator/conciliator. Cost. formality. The arbitration decision. Brief conferences are sometimes held before the arbitration hearing to sketch out details such as the need for confidentiality throughout the entire process and to iron out hotly contested issues.as to when their decisions are due. conciliation is a precursor to arbitration. The phrase ‘negotiating table’ . It could cover negotiation. Conciliation is a first step. That is usually followed by brief closing arguments during which both sides summarize the evidence. and tangible things -. an arbitrator's decision can only be appealed if there is proof that:  corruption. sometimes with explanations and a rationale of the reasoning ranging in length from a few to dozens of pages. It involves the following steps:  Bringing the parties to the negotiating table. Arbitration decisions are usually regarded as final and it is very tough to get a court to review or vacate them. the parties can agree to have arbitrations in any convenient setting. or  the arbitrator exceeded his or her power. Section 77 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Generally.Pre-hearing conferences. Thus. Witnesses may also be called to testify and be questioned and cross-examined.

The disputes may relate to clarity of matters such as money matters. The issues which shape into the disputes should be clarified. In such type of methods the resolution of conflict by conciliation. state of things or relation of things. he gains a perspective of the issues in dispute and of alternative possibilities of settlement. Conciliation mends relationship. it gives a lot of scope for the parties in conflict to resolve the disputes by their own will and determination. By promoting their attitudes and discovering in what fields they may be prepared to show some flexibility.  Identifying problems. has no similarity with litigation as such. If the dispute involves a number of issues. both of law and fact should clarify before developing the option for settlement.  Developing the options for settlement. though is considered a better means to resolve disputes over litigation. for amicable settlement of their dispute. The mediator/conciliator should not himself make a proposal for settlement of the dispute unless he has exhausted all possibilities of obtaining a settlement on the basis of the parties proposed solutions.[ A primer on Alternative Dispute Resolution] Courts and arbitrators decide the dispute after a contest between the parties. It places emphasis on peace and harmony over conflict. Two. That is to say. Conciliation on the other hand.means a formal discussion to try and reach an agreement. first of all. professional status. litigation and victory. means and includes anything.  Establishing facts. If it is not possible to obtain agreement on the issues. he should do his best to persuade the parties to agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. those problems should be defined precisely without giving any room for vagueness and ambiguity. . As arbitration in the modern times. Issues. capable of being perceived by the senses. An ideal way of proceeding in a case of a dispute would be first try resolving the dispute by conciliation and if that doesn’t work resort to arbitration. has some negative points too because here also. his proposal should be for a “package” settlement that will dispose of all such issues.  Ultimately reaching agreement. Fact. while in the case of conciliation the final result depends on the will of the parties. Therefore. all the facts relevant to the case for which solution is being tried should be ascertained. and they may be available in respect of a single issue or a combination of issues. only those problems that exist between the parties and require to be resolved in order to preserve their relationship should be discussed. The parties should identify the problems between them. It is necessary to have trained conciliators at the disposal of courts so that regular cases can be disposed of with the aid of parallel mechanism thereby unburdening the courts and other reducing judicial delays. These options may vary in number according to the nature of the issues involved. health and so on involving variegated issues. An issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. the parties should discuss to try and reach an agreement. Issues of fact may arise from the credibility of the parties themselves or from data supplied by third parties. a third party decides on the behalf of the conflicting parties. It is the first step and in any dispute between the parties if it does not work then the parties should resort to arbitration. including interpretations placed on such data and issues of law will generally arise from opinions given by respective legal representatives. any mental condition of which any person is conscious.  Clarifying the issues. emotional harmony between the parties does not suffer. The facts should be established. He should not formally make his proposal at a joint meeting without having first obtained the agreement of each of the parties separately. Two points deserve to be mentioned here: One. The mediator/conciliator opens to the disputing parties a variety of available options besides those they can think of themselves. reputation. There is a caveat to the resolution on dispute by conciliation to have it effectively implemented. Material propositions are those of law or fact which the claimant may allege in order to show a right to claim or which a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defense. It is an informal method of dispute resolution.

In cases where court has been given the authority to review the outcome. Thus. Thus. is definitely for the good. ADR mechanisms would yield remedies better tailored to parties’ unique needs and more direct involvement of disputants would encourage greater compliance with outcomes and help rebuild ruptured relationships. it can be reasonably concluded that Conciliation. Conciliation is unquestionably a better option than arbitration as the experience in past few years has shown that arbitration is neither inexpensive nor time saving. the advantage does not appear to be real on account of first spending time before the arbitration tribunals and then in courts. _______________________ . being the precursor to arbitration.According to certain social scientists and other scholars. Conciliation is a more amicable way to settle disputes without harming the personal relations as well. the pros of Conciliation are categorically more than arbitration which asserts my stand that it is for the better.