Book Report 
ALTERNATIVE 
DISPUTE 
RESOLUTION  
 

 
 

Your Name 
4th September, 20XX 
 

1 
 

The Concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution 

ADR is an abbreviation that stands for ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’. ADR refers to all those 
methods of solving disputes which are alternatives for litigation in the courts. ADR processes are 
decision making process through which litigants or potential litigants may resolve their disputes. 
These procedures are usually less costly and more expeditious. This method can be used in 
commercial and labour disputes, divorce actions, in resolving tax-claims and in other disputes 
that would likely otherwise involve court litigation. 

ADR (alternative dispute resolution) usually describes dispute resolution where an independent 
person (an ADR practitioner, such as a mediator) helps people in dispute to try to sort out the 
issues between them. ADR can help people to resolve a dispute before it becomes so big that a 
court or tribunal becomes involved. ADR can be very flexible and can be used for almost any kind 
of dispute. 

Using ADR can Help you to resolve all or some of the issues in your dispute 

Provide a fair process 

Help you to achieve outcomes that work for everyone involved in the dispute. 

Resolving your dispute through ADR is different from asking a court or tribunal to resolve your 
dispute. Using ADR to resolve your dispute can benefit everyone. It means that courts and 
tribunals can spend their time considering disputes that need a court or tribunal decision. 

ADR processes can be less expensive than other ways of resolving your dispute. Going to court 
can be very expensive. Tribunals can be less expensive but can still involve hearings and legal 
costs if you are represented. 

ADR processes and outcomes focus on what is important to you and the other people involved. 
Courts and tribunals focus on legal rights. ADR processes may help you and other people to 
maintain relationships . 

2 
 

Development of ADR since Ages 

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 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. 

ADR in Ancient India 

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 the procedure for making it easy, cheap, unfailing and 
convenient to obtain justice.[1] 

It is generally presumed that the commonly prevalent system of Government in Ancient India was 
monarchy and instances of republic were either exceptions or aberrations. The view is based on 
the apparent perception that since there were kings in ancient India, the system was that of 
monarchy. 

In earlier times, disputes were peacefully decided by intervention of kulas (family or clan 
assemblies), srenis (guilds of men following the same occupation), parishads (assemblies of 
learned men who knew law) before the king came to adjudicate on disputes. The political system 
of the Aryans in their initial days here was amazingly complex, though quite ingenious. They hung 
around together in small village settlements (which later grew to kingdoms) and the basis of their 
political and social organization was, not surprisingly, the clan or kula. Being of somewhat militant 
nature, this was very much a patriarchal society, with the man in the house expected to keep his 
flock in control. Groups of kulas together formed a Grama or village, which was headed by a 
Gramina. Many villages formed another political unit called a Visya, headed by a Visyapati. The 
Visyas in turn collected under a Jana, which was ruled by a Rajana or king. However, the precise 
relationship between the grama, the visya and the Jana has not been clearly defined anywhere. 

In ancient India, there were several grades of arbitration, for example the Puga or a board of 
persons who belonged to different sects and tribes but lived in the same locality; the Sreni or 

3 
 

assemblies of tradesmen and artisans belonging to different tribes but connected in some way 
with each other, the Kula or groups of persons bound by family ties. From early times, the 
decisions of Panchayats were accepted as binding. According to Colebrooke (an English scholar 
and commentator on ancient Hindu law), Panchayats were different systems of arbitration 
subordinate to the regular courts of law. The decision of a Kula or kin group was subject to 
revision by the Sreni which, in turn, could be revised by the Puga. From the decision of the Puga, 
appeal was maintainable to Pradvivaca and finally to the sovereign and the prince. 

It is important to note that in ancient India joint families were the order of the day and they were 
usually very large. When therefore, a disagreement or dispute used to take place between two 
members of a family, it was usually settled by its elders. If they failed to bring about any 
compromise, the sreni or the guild courts used to intervene. Srenis or guilds became a prominent 
feature of commercial life in ancient India from 500 B.C. They were well organized and had their 
own executive committees of four or five members. 

ADR in Mughal Period 

The administrative system of the Mughal Empire was largely the work of Akbar, for the early two 
Mughal kings (Babur and Humayun) did not really get the chance to implement much of a system. 
Nothing like modern legislation, or a written code of laws, existed in the Mughal period. The only 
notable exceptions to this were the twelve ordinances of Jahagir and the Fatawa-i-A Xat^ a 
digest of Muslim law prepared under supervision. The judges chiefly followed the Quranic 
injunctions or precepts, the Fatwas or previous interpretations of the Holy Law by eminent jurists, 
and the qanunus or ordinances of the Emperors. They did not ordinarily disregard customary laws 
and sometimes followed principles of equity. 

The Mughals had three separate judicial agencies, all working at the same time and independent 
of each other. Those were the courts of religious law, court of secular law, and political courts. As 
regards the courts of religious law, those were presided over by the Qazis who decided cases 
according to Islamic law. As regards the courts of secular law, they were presided over by 
Governors, Faujdars and Kotwals. In the time of Akbar, Brahmans were appointed to decide the 
cases of Hindus. The Panchayats also fell under this category. The courts of secular law were not 
under the thumb of the Qazi. Political courts tried political cases like rebellion, rioting, theft, 
robbery, murders, etc. They were presided over by Subahdars, Faujdars Kotwals, etc. 

4 
 

Mughal emperors had keen interest to deliver speedy justice to its citizens. The justice system 
placed even senior officers within the law, and perhaps the only person really above the law was 
the emperor himself. Most villagers however resolved their cases in the village courts itself and 
appeal to the caste courts or panchayats, the arbitration of an impartial umpire (salis), or by a 
resort to force”. The punishments were fairly severe, ranging from imprisonment to amputation, 
mutation and whipping. The approval of the emperor was however mandatory for capital 
punishment. In the Mughal judicial system, the emperor was the final court of appeal. 

ADR during British regime 

Judicial administration was changed during British period. The current judicial system of India is 
very close to the judicial administration as prevailed during British period. The traditional 
institutions worked as recognised system of administration of justice and not merely alternatives 
to the formal justice system established by the British. The two systems continued to operate 
parallel to each other.[2] 

The system of alternate dispute redressal was found not only as a convenient procedure but was 
also seen as a politically safe and significant in the days of British Raj. However, with the advent 
of the British Raj these traditional institutions of dispute resolution somehow started withering 
and the formal legal system introduced by the British began to rule. 

Alternate Dispute Resolution in the present form picked up pace in the country, with the coming 
of the East India Company. Modern arbitration law in India was created by the Bengal 
Regulations. The Bengal Regulations of 1772, 1780 and 1781 were designed to encourage 
arbitration.[3] Bengal Resolution Act, 1772 and Bengal Regulation Act, 1781 provided parties to 
submit the dispute to the arbitrator, appointed after mutual agreement and whose verdict shall be 
binding on both the parties. Hence, there were several Regulations and legislation that were 
brought in resulting considerable changes from 1772. After several Regulations containing 
provisions relating to arbitration Act VIII of 1857 codified the procedure of Civil Courts except 
those established by the Royal Charter, which contained Sections 312 to 325 dealing with 
arbitration in suits. Sections 326 and 327 provided for arbitration without the intervention of the 
court. 

5 
 

After some other provisions from time to time Indian Arbitration Act,1899 was passed, based on 
the English Arbitration Act of 1889. It was the first substantive law on the subject of arbitration but 
its application was limited to the Presidency – towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Act, 
however suffered from many defects and was subjected to severe judicial criticisms. 

The Arbitration Act of 1940 was enacted replacing the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 and section 
89 and clauses (a) to (f) of section 104(1) and the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure 
1908. It amended and consolidated the law relating to arbitration in British India and remained a 
comprehensive law on Arbitration even in the Republican India until 1996. 

ADR in Independent India 

Bodies such as the panchayat, a group of elders and influential persons in a village deciding the 
dispute between villagers are not uncommon even today. In 1982 settlement of disputes out of 
courts started through Lok Adalats. The first Lok Adalat was held on March 14, 1982 at Junagarh 
in Gujarat and now it has been extended throughout the country. Initially, Lok Adalats functioned 
as a voluntary and conciliatory agency without any statutory backing for its decisions. By the 
enactment of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which came into force from November 9, 
1995, the institution of Lok Adalats received statutory status. To keep pace with the globalization 
of commerce the old Arbitration Act of 1940 is replaced by the new Arbitration and Conciliation 
Act, 1996. Settlement of matters concerning the family has been provided under Order XXXI IA of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by amendment in 1976. Provisions for making efforts for 
reconciliation under Sections 23 (2) and 23 (3) of the Hindu Marriage 

Act, 1955 as also under Section 34 (3) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 are made. Family Courts 
Act was enacted in 1984. Under Family Courts Act, 1984 it is the duty of the family court to make 
efforts for settlement between the parties. 

Introduction of section 89 and Order X Rule 1A, 1B and 1C by way of the 1999 Amendment in the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a radical advancement made by the Indian Legislature in 
embracing the system of “Court Referred Alternative Disputes Resolution”. 

6 
 

Law Commission Report and Need for ADR 

Reasons of finding alternatives: 

Weight of Pendency 
The need for finding alternatives arises due to the working of the present system of 
administration of justice, which is crumbling under the weight of the pending cases. 

State fighting the citizens 

Interestingly, the government is the biggest litigant in the country. According to a rough estimate, 
around 70 per cent of all cases are either agitated by the State, or appealed by it. The State fight 
cases against the citizens at the cost of citizens. Thus, directly or indirectly the State is also 
responsible for increasing the weight of pending cases. 

Other reasons 
Jurists have suggested that the reduction in the number of holidays of courts, and an increase in 
the working of days. At present the court are working for 210-230 days per year, with a fairly long 
summer vacation. If courts work for longer hours and days, litigation can be brought under 
control. 

Adjournments 
Unnecessary adjournments also extend the life of litigation. The process of adjournment, on 
frivolous grounds, is one of the major reasons for increase in delay. There is a need to evolve a 
set of guidelines for granting adjournments, and a framework for the settlement of dispute should 
be designed. 

7 
 

To overcome such problems, the law commission of India set up to reform the ‘justice delivery 
system in India’, time in time came up with the solutions and suggestions, and these are: 

The Law Commission of India, 117th Report in the year 1986, talks on the ‘training of judicial 
officers’ so that the huge backlog of cases can be managed. The law officers should be trained 
as per modern methods of dispute resolution, so as to re-establish the credibility on justice 
delivery system in India and to restructure judiciary on all levels in India. 

The 221st Law Commission of India, in the year 2009 came up with their report on ‘Need for 
Speedy Justice – Some Suggestions’ since there was Mounting of arrears of cases in courts, 
particularly in High Courts and District Courts, has been a cause of great concern for litigants as 
well as for the State. It is a fundamental right of every citizen to get speedy justice and speedy 
trial which also is the fundamental requirement of good judicial administration. In this Report, they 
have made few proposals which when given effect to, will be helpful not only in providing speedy 
justice but also in controlling frivolous, vexatious and luxurious litigations. 

Several amendments have been suggested, In order to shorten the delay in disposal of cases, it 
is necessary that provisions parallel to section 80 CPC be introduced for all kinds of civil suits and 
cases proposed to be filed by a litigant. 

The 222nd Report of the Law Commission of India on the subject- Need for Justice-dispensation 
through ADR etc came up in 2009 “To keep under review the system of judicial administration to 
ensure that it is responsive to the reasonable demands of the time and in particular to secure:- 

(i) Elimination of delays, speedy clearance of arrears and reduction in costs so as to secure quick 
and economical disposal of cases without affecting the cardinal principle that decision should be 
just and fair. 

8 
 

(ii) Simplification of procedure to reduce and eliminate technicalities and devices for delay so that 
it operates not as an end in itself but as a means of achieving justice. 

(iii) Improvement of standards of all concerned with the administration of justice.” 

This report was in the continuum of the Law Commission’s various earlier reports on the subject 
of judicial administration. Hence, it is the execution of the saying that Justice must be effective, 
speedy, less costly and non-cumbersome. 

The recommendations of law commission were adopted and incorporated in Rules 1-A, 1-B and 
1-C of Order X of the CPC. 

Law Commission of India (report no. 230) on ‘Reforms in the judiciary – some suggestions’ The 
recommendations in this Report are the suggestions made by the Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashok 
Kumar Ganguly, former Judge of the Supreme Court, these recommendations are: 

There must be full utilization of the court working hours. The judges must be punctual and 
lawyers must not be asking for adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary. Grant of 
adjournment must be guided strictly by the provisions of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Judges must deliver judgments within a reasonable time and in that matter, the guidelines given 
by the apex court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar,[4] must be scrupulously observed both 
in civil and criminal cases. 

Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 
10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half an hour. 

Law commission of India in its 240th report in the year 2012 on ‘Costs in Civil Litigation’ also 
suggested some measures. The Law Commission has taken an in-depth study and had 
interaction with the judicial officers and lawyers at the conference held in some of the States. 
The Rules of various High Courts governing taxation of costs and advocate’s fee have been 

9 
 

pursued. Keeping in view the triple goals of (i) ensuring realistic and reasonable costs to the 
successful party, (ii) curbing false and frivolous litigation and (iii) discouraging unnecessary 
adjournments, the recommendations have been made. To felicitate expeditious realization of 
costs pending appeals, amendments to law has been suggested. As per the recommendations, 
certain legislative changes in CPC have been proposed. Amendments to Section 35A 
(compensatory costs for false and frivolous litigation), S. 95 (compensation for obtaining arrests, 
attachment, etc., on insufficient grounds), Order XXV (security for costs), Order LXI (appeals from 
original decrees), Order XX, Rule 6A (preparation of decree), have been suggested. 

Impact of Sec 89 of the CPC in the Alternative Dispute Forum​: 

 

The object of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that settlement should be attempted 
by adopting an appropriate Alternative Dispute Redressal process. Neither section 89 nor Order 
X, rule 1A of the CPC is intended to supersede or modify the provisions of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act or the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 

Section 89 of the CPC makes it clear that two of the ADR processes (i.e. Arbitration and 
Conciliation) will be governed by the Act of 1996. And two others i.e. Lok Adalat and mediation is 
governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 89 of the CPC cannot be take 
recourse unless all parties concerned give consent. 

Insight into Indian Judicial System: Backlog of Cases and Crisis of Judges 
Today when more than two and a half crores (As per the Ministry of Law and Justice press 
release 48,838 cases are pending in Supreme Court, 38,82,074 cases pending in the High Court 
and 2,52,40,185 are pending in subordinate courts as on 31.1.2008) of cases pending in our 
courts, that means at least five crore people are directly involved in litigation that about 4 percent 
of our population, and we have only 12,500 judges at lower court level and about 647 judges at 
various High Court and 26 judges in the Supreme Court of India. 

10 
 

Our Justice Administration system is “adversarial” in nature in which there are two parties and 
they are face to face with each other in the Court, and we have seen that it’s not the legal issues 
which are involved in most of the cases put before us rather its ego which come in between and 
it ultimately ends in blood amongst the litigants, and hatretism. 

It is also observed that our courts have very limited time for example 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM 
we are in Court but during that time we have to manage out time for various things like signing of 
files, and day to day orders, meetings, compliances of directions of higher courts, and other 
miscellaneous work, which a judge has to see. 

The time-consumption is the structural property of our legal system. Hence, this results in a large 
number of case backlog. The ‘delay’ is caused by 1) State, 2) Courts, 3) litigants. 

The ‘state’ contributes to the crisis by its own lack of priority for matters relating to the 
administration of justice. The judicial appointments are held up for no valid reasons; this was 
made clear by Shah Committee Report. Another related aspect of judicial appointments concerns 
the quality of judges appointed to the higher judiciary. The state failed in its duty by not providing 
realistic assessment of the judicial manpower needed for maintaining an efficient and a just 
justice administration. 

The ‘Court’ contributes to the crisis, the lack of court management procedures do contribute to 
the growing arrears. The failure to maintain a proper notice of ready cases, failure to provide 
priority for old cases, failure to bunch together cases involving substantially similar points of law 
contributed to delay and arrears in the High Courts. 

The ‘Litigants’ also contributes to the crisis, senior lawyers, in whose hands the work is heavily 
concentrated, contribute to delay and arrears by their non-availability and unpreparedness. They 
attitude is a big concern, which revolve around the generation of money by delaying the matter 
and getting the future dates. 

11 
 

Hence, the legal system or atleast the practitioners and academicians tries to shift to another way 
of settlement of dispute. 

ADR v. Litigation 
In arbitration, the parties can settle their dispute outside the traditional courtroom, while a 
litigation process is done inside the court of law. 

In arbitration, the lawyers may or may not be involved while in litigation the actions before judge 
is brought by lawyers only. 

Arbitration is a private method of dispute resolution in which the parties select the individual or 
individuals who will finally decide the matters in issue following a process agreed upon by the 
parties, with no or a minimum of court intervention, while this is the case in litigation. 

In litigation, judges do not always have technical competence, while in arbitration the parties can 
select an expert in a field to be appointed as an arbitrator. 

Arbitrators are generally expected to spend more time on a case than judges usually can. This is 
valuable in complex matters and may result in better decisions. 

Arbitrators often, and in principle have more flexible schedules than judges and can make 
themselves available in the evenings or during holidays. 

In arbitration proceedings, rules can be tailored to fit the case. 

May diminish bias in favour of small litigants in big litigant vs. small litigant dispute. An arbitrator 
may have more independence than many judges may have 

Choice of law is given to parties in arbitration, which is not in case of litigation. 

Arbitration is a less formal type of dispute resolution, while litigation is traditional, and formal, 
form of dispute resolution. 

12 
 

ADR and its Types 

Arbitration 
When two or more persons agree that a dispute or potential dispute between them shall be 
decided in a legally binding way by one or more impartial persons in a judicial manner, the 
agreement arrived after such settlement is called ‘arbitration agreement. The process is called 
the ‘arbitration’ and the decision when made is called the ‘award’[5]. 

Conciliation 
Conciliation is a process in which a third party assists the parties to resolve their disputes by 
agreement. A conciliator may do this by expressing an opinion about the merits of the dispute to 
help the parties to reach a settlement. Hence, conciliation is a compromise settlement with the 
assistance of a conciliator. 

Mediation 
Mediation is a process for resolving disputes with the aid of an independent third person that 
assists the parties in dispute to reach a negotiated resolution. Mediation is the acceptable 
intervention into a dispute of a third party that has no authority to make a decision. 

Negotiation 
Negotiation is a process by which parties resolve their disputes. They agree upon a course of 
action and bargain for advantage. Sometimes, they try to adopt such a creative option that serves 
their mutual interests. Because of its mutual advantages, people negotiate in almost all walks of 
life, from home to the courtroom. 

13 
 

Lok Adalat 
Lok Adalat generally means the people’s court. It is not a court in strict sense of term, nut it is a 
forum where voluntary efforts are made for settlement of disputes between the parties. In other 
words, Lok Adalat is a forum of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This system based on 
gandhian principles. It provides an alternative resolution or device for expeditious and 
inexpensive justice. 

Gram Nyayalayas 
Gram Nyayalayas is an Alternative form of dispute resolution. The Gram Nyayalayas is the latest 
in the reforms in the structure of the Indian judiciary. This system provides speedy justice. The 
Gram Nyayalayas as a different court was proposed by the 114th Law Commission 
(lawcommissionofindia.nic.in) way back in 1986. This model of adjudication will be best suited for 
rural litigation. The Law Commission observed that such a court would be ideally suited for the 
villages as the nature of disputes coming before such a court would be ‘simple, uncomplicated 
and easy of solution’ and that such disputes should not be enmeshed in procedural claptrap. 

Online ADR Mechanism 

In the context of the Internet, where parties located in different corners of the world can contract 
with each other at the click of a mouse, litigation of online disputes is often inconvenient, 
impractical, time-consuming and prohibitive. Providing an alternative approach to resolve online 
disputes might assist in redressing grievances and gaining consumer confidence in e-commerce. 
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is an appurtenant candidate for such an approach. 

The Virtual Magistrate Project, launched in 1996, initiated the idea of using ADR to resolve 
Internet-related disputes. The joint statement promoting the use of ADR in cyberspace, made by 
the European Union and the United States at a summit in Washington D.C. on December 18, 
2000, set the ball rolling. Since then, various entities, including governments, consumer groups, 
lawyers, academia, and international organizations have been catapulted into arriving at an 
effective means to implement ADR globally on the Internet. 

14 
 

Existing online ADR services 

The Virtual Magistrate Project 

The Virtual Magistrate Project (VMAG) aims to demonstrate that online technology could be used 
to resolve online disputes in a quick, cost-effective, and accessible means using arbitration. All 
proceedings would take place by email, and a decision was to be reached within three business 
days once the initial complaint was received. However, VMAG was largely unsuccessful because 
several complaints were not within its jurisdiction and the project was not widely advertised, 
thereby creating less awareness of this service. 

The Online Ombuds Office 

The Online Ombuds Office (OOO) began in June 1996 as a “mediation service aimed at 
disagreements that arise from a broad array of online activities. The OOO currently exists as the 
“dispute resolution arm of the Center, working to employ and develop online dispute resolution 
resources. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

WIPO is the leading accredited domain name dispute resolution provider under the Uniform 
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted by the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The domain name case is usually concluded within two 
months using online procedures. The WIPO arbitration award, however, is not binding, and either 
party can take the case before a court within ten days of the decision. The WIPO process has 
been very successful in settling domain name disputes. 

SquareTrade 

Founded in 1999, Square Trade is another popular online ADR service provider that offers a 
forum to mediate e-commerce consumer disputes. Once the buyer or seller files a complaint with 
the site, SquareTrade notifies the other party of the complaint. The parties first attempt to resolve 
the dispute through direct negotiation, during which they can request the assistance of a 
mediator. The mediator assists the parties in reaching a fair and mutually agreeable settlement 

15 
 

and recommends a solution upon the parties’ request. The parties ultimately reach a settlement 
agreement based on the direct negotiation or mediation. However, the traditional legal system is 
always open to the parties who participate in the Square Trade resolution process. 

com 

Cybersettle.com focuses on the settlement of monetary disputes, particularly insurance related 

and workers compensation disputes. This service uses the process of blind bid negotiations to 
settle disputes. Parties submit online confidential settlement bids through e-mail to the website. 
Cybersettle.com usually allows three rounds of bidding. Cybersettle.com e-mails the other party 
informing him that the initiating party has entered the bids. The other party then provides 
settlement demands as first, second, and third round offers. The software technology 
automatically compares the ranked bids to determine if the parties have arrived at a settlement. 
The attorneys or claims professionals do not have to pay any fee unless there is a settlement. 
Even where there is no settlement, the bids are kept confidential and the parties can pursue 
other means of resolution. 

Cases best suited for online ADR 

 

Online disputes typically arise in relation to material that is displayed or available online. Some of 
the types of disputes that could be resolved using online ADR mechanisms are: 

E-Commerce Disputes 

Domain Name Disputes 

Intellectual Property Disputes 

Monetary Disputes 

Benefits of ADR 

To give a quick, effective relief to the people of India introduction of alternative dispute resolution 
for disposal of cases expeditiously is the urgent need of the day. The benefits which accrue from 
ADR are: 

16 
 

It will render speedy relief to the parties 

It can be used at any stage of the proceedings 

It is a more time-saving process to resolve the dispute compared with traditional court-practice 
and procedure 

It will reduce the burden on the court 

Presence of lawyer is not necessary. The lawyer can assist the court and help the parties to 
understand the complicated question of law or issues involved in the process 

It can provide better solution to litigants as expeditiously as possible 

Parties have every right to approach the court when they fail to arrive at a settlement 

Statement of the parties cannot be used as an admission in court proceedings if the parties fail to 
arrive at the conclusion 

The procedures are flexible 

Technicalities of law and procedure, rules of evidence have no place in ADR mechanism 

Parties can take the help of a neutral person specialized in the field of the subject which is the 
subject-matter of dispute 

[1] Dr. Shraddhakara Supakar, Law of Procedure and Justice in Ancient India, Deep & Deep 
Publication, New Delhi, 1986. 

[2] Sarvesh Chandra, ADR: Is Conciliation the Best Choice, in P.C. Rao and William Sheffield (eds.), 
Alternative Dispute Resolution: What it is and How it Works, Universal Law Publishing Co., New 
Delhi, (1997) p. 85 

[3] Nripendra Nath Sircar, Law of Arbitration in British India (1942), p. 6 cited in 76’th Report of Law 
Commission of India, 1978, p. 6, para 1.14 

[4] Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318. 

17 
 

[5] Ronald Berstein Derek Wood in Handbook of Arbitration Practice, 2nd Edn., P.9. 

   

18 
 

19