SIMULATION EXERCISE – 1

ARBITRATION
Cause Title

Before the Sole Arbitrator

Mysuru
Case No. 68/2019

Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh) ………. Claimant

Residing at mysore

V/S

Sudeep, Pradeep …………. Respondent

Residing at mysore

Reference of the Dispute for Arbitration under Section 8 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

[Avinash] [Varun]
Advocate Advocate
Counsel for Claimant Counsel for Respondent

1
Facts of the Dispute

Suresh owns 4 acres of inherited property Suresh has two sons

Ramesh and Umesh Suresh dies on 3rd December 1945. After his
death Ramesh and Umesh have registered equal shares in their names
Ramesh is a government official and owns two acres of free hold
property and owns inherited property. Ramesh has two sons Sudeep
and Pradeep and two daughters Geeta and Sheela.

Ramesh died intestate in 1998 Sheila was married in 2000. Two years
after marriage there was financial problem in Sheila's husband's
house. Hence she asked for a share in her father's property but the
brothers refused. They stated that all the responsibilities of the house
were taken care of by the two brothers. Therefore they have registered
the property on 20 December 2004 with equal shares in their
respective names. So Sheila runs filed a case against their brother, her
mother and sister also join her.

2
Arbitration Agreement & Appointment of the Arbitrator

This agreement made and entered into between Sheela, Geetha,

mother (wife of Ramesh) (Party 1) and Sudeep, Pradeep (Party 2)
on this second day of 7th month 2019 (2nd day of July Month 2019)
witnessed as follows:

For the purpose of final determination of the dispute, the matter will
be referred to Surya, an Arbitrator nominated by both the parties.

Having agreed to the above by both the parties, the said parties affix
their signatures to this agreement this 5th day of July 2019, mysuru.

Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh) Sudeep, Pradeep

Party 1 Party 2
Represented by his Counsel Represented by his Counsel

Name : Avinash Name : Varun

Witnessed by
Jason D’Souza

3
STATEMENT OF THE CLAIMANT

Claimant Details:
Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh)
Aged around 30 years, 35 years, 72 years respectively,
Residing at Mysore.

I, Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh), in my true sense state

the following claims:

 Equal share among her father's property.

 Claimant claims that she has been discriminated in the process

of dividing property.

 To support her family she wants her father's property as it would

help her to come out of financial crisis that she is facing.

 she also feels that she has been ignored of her interest in her
father's property

Dated 10/07/2019 Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh)

(claimant)

4
STATEMENT OF THE DEFENCE

Defendant/Respondent Details:
Sudeep, Pradeep
Aged around 45 years and 49
years.
Residing at Mysore.

I, Sudeep, Pradeep, in my true sense state the following claims:

 The property which is already divided cannot be divided any

further,

 The basic household needs are fulfilled by us( pradeep and

sudeep) due to which we have incurred Financial loss and
taking away this property will put us into more trouble,

 As both of us are still unmarried we have the responsibility of

our younger sister and also to take care of our mother and
ourselves.

Dated: 10/07/2019
Sudeep, Pradeep
(Defendant/Respondent)

5
 CLAIMANT ARGUMENT

Claimant Counsel Details:

Avinash
Office at Agrahara, Mysore

For the kind perusal of

Surya(Arbitrator)
mysore.

I, Avinash ,Claimant’s Counsel, in my true sense state the following

arguments:

As my client is a woman she has been neglected in giving the share

of her and sister's property.

The partition of the property is done without the consent of one of my

client (sheela) which clearly shows that the respondent has done this
with the malified intention

it is also clearly seen that they have not taken good care of my mother
according to Hindu succession Act , a woman becomes a
coparcener from the birth and she has equal rights over the property
as men have
article 14 of the Indian constitution also States the term equality
which has been infringed in this case
the Hindu succession Act has a retrospective effect even though the
property is divided in the year 2004

Dated: 11/08/2019
Avinash
(Counsel for Claimant)

6
 OPPONENT ARGUMENT

Defendant/Respondent Counsel Details:

Varun
Office at Vontikoppal ,Mysore

For the kind perusal of

Surya(Arbitrator)
Mysore.

I, Varun, Respondent’s Counsel, in my true sense state the following

arguments:
The property cannot be divided as my clients have taken the burden
for getting Sheela married as well as her sister Gita School expenses
and also taking care of the mother
the property is said to be asked as Sheila has financial problem at her
in-laws place and this property will indirectly go to the husband's
Financial issue resolution
mother and sister Geeta has been influenced by the words of Sheela
for asking the division of property
we can clearly see that the interest of property was not seen during the
marriage or before the marriage of Sheela , it is seen after 2 years of
marriage in which Sheela's husband is under financial problem and
has influenced her to get her ancestral property to resolve the issue
in the case prakash vs phulavati (2016) the court clearly stated that
retrospective effect of Hindu succession Act is only on the undivided
property and not on already divided properties

Dated: 11/08/2019 Varun

(Counsel for Defendant/Respondent)

7
 OBSERVATION BY THE ARBITRATOR

After hearing the arguments of both the parties I have observed the
following elements in this case,
The share of divided property has been asked after 2 years of
marriage by Sheela , clearly states that it is for the financial problem
in her husband's side.
Even though Hindu succession act 2005 gives equal rights for men
and women over ancestral property it has retrospective effect only to
undivided properties, but in this case as the property is already
divided the retrospective effect does not come into action.
The financial burden on pradeep and sudeep is clearly seen.
Before the division of property the consent of Sheela was not taken,
20th December 2004 was the last day as from 21st to December 2004
the Hindu succession Act would have come into existence, knowing
this the brothers have divided the property with the malafide intention
and it is clearly seen.

8
 Arbitral Award
Before the Sole Arbitrator
mysore
Case No. 68/2019

Sheela, Geetha, mother (wife of Ramesh) ………. Claimant

Residing at mysore

V/S

Sudeep, Pradeep …………. Respondent

Residing at mysore

This is the award by the undersigned, made on 1st

day of October 2019,

It is clearly seen that the brothers have divided the property

with malified intention and also without taking the consent of one of
the party
the financial burden on the brothers is clearly seen
the arbitrator awards that instead of 1/5 of the property to each
members of the family the brothers get one acre of land each and rest
two acres of land will be divided among Sheela ,Geeta and mother

I award and direct that the fee of the Arbitrator Rs.4000/- shall be
borne and paid by both the parties equally.

Date: 01/10/2019
Surya
Arbitrator

9
 SIMULATION EXERCISE – 2
Conciliation
Cause Title

Before the Conciliator

Bangalore
Case No. 50/2020

Andy and Maria

Aged about 35 and 37 ………. Claimant
Residing at Mumbai

V/S

Tiler
Aged about 40 …………. Respondent
Residing at Mumbai

Matter referred to Conciliation to resolve the problem.

Here Andy and Maria are the 1st party and the Tiler is the 2nd party.

10
2.FACT OF DISPUTE

Maria and Andy were renovating their bathroom. To save on costs,

they bought a lot of the material themselves including Rs5,000 worth
of tiles. They arranged for a tiler to lay the tiles for Rs4,000. When
the tiling was finished they were not happy with the final result. They
thought the tiles were not all laid completely flat and the grouting
lines were crooked.

The tiler explained that the particular type of tiles they had bought
were extremely difficult to lay, and he offered to go back and re-lay
any tiles that were laid incorrectly. However, the couple had lost
confidence in the tiler and were not prepared to let him back into their
home, as they were concerned he would made the tiles look
worse. Maria and Andy lodged a claim for cost of the tiles and
labour. Matter referred to Conciliation.

. CONCILIATORS OPENING STATEMENT

• The Conciliator introduces himself by giving the information

such as his name & qualification.
• The Conciliator requests the parties & this counsels to introduce
themselves.
• The Conciliator expresses the hope that the matter would be
amicably resolved, in order to get the trust & confidence of each
party.
• In the opening statement, the Conciliator explain to the parties
the concept, process, advantages & stages of mediation.
• Also the ground rules of the Conciliator are told.

11
 Statement of First Party

Andy and Maria are the couples who wanted to renovate their
bathroom, so they got tiles according to their taste.
The tiler agreed to fix the tiles for 4000rs, as the couple were not
financially well they got the tiles themselves to avoid extra cost.
The Tiler hired was experienced so they did not monitor him. At the
final output the couples could see the tiles for not late properly.
That else or not played completely flat which was not good for
bathroom fitting, due to this the couple could not give the second
chance to the same tailor as he did not have trust of the couple.
It has been mess for the couple for not using their own bathroom and
paying for the public toilet.
We request you kindly compensate us with 9000rs, so that we can
hide another tiler and fix

Statement of Second Party

The tiles the couple got were not of good brand, as a insisted them
about the wrong fitting they told me that they trust me for work and
paid extra to fit. But in the due time of fitting I found out that these
tiles were not for this bathroom. Due to which I even reminded them
about it but they set that it could be fitted.
To save the cost the couple themselves bought a wrong material and
blamed on me for the fitting it, They did not correct me during my
work and waited for my work to complete later they Put The Blame
On Me.
I even offer them for a retile fitting but they refused this clearly shows
their intention was to regain their money.
9000rs is a lot of money for a worker like me and also due to this
problem I could not work in other places for 2 days due to which I am
running in loss.
12
 Observation by the conciliator

It was clearly seen that the material which the couple had bought was
not to be fit in the bathroom but the tiler with good intention tried his
level best to fit the tiles for the couple. According to my observation
in this case the couple try to extract money from the tiler for the
wrong material chosen by the couple.
Considering the point that claim of 9000rs is a big amount to a daily
worker cannot be given by the tiler to the couple.
The Couple did not monitor the work well due to which it has led
loss to both Tiler as well as the couple.
Here we cannot hold single person guilty.
I suggest the couple to buy a new set of tiles and give another
opportunity to the tiler or any other colleague of his to install the tiles
to the bathroom for free of cost.

13
Settlement Agreement
Date: 11/08/2020
Andy and Maria [Claimant]
Tiler [Respondent]
A Conciliation session was held between the parties on 11/08/2020
which briefly stated that the relevant facts of the case disclosed by
Andy,Maria that tiler did not fit the tiles well and caused extra
expense for them. After conciliation, both Andy,Maria and tiler have
agreed to settle the dispute as follows,
1)Andy and maria will get a new set of tiles.
2)The same or the other tiler will install them for free of cost.
3)No money will be recovered from the tiler .
4)This must be done within 5days starting from today.
5)These conditions have been agreed by both the parties, and they
have settled the dispute out of their own and free Will.

Claimant Respondent

Advocate: Advocate:

Copy of settlement will be given to both the parties.

Signature of Conciliator:
WITNESS

14
 SIMULATION EXERCISE – 3
Mediation
Cause Title

Before the Mediator

Mysuru
Case No. 60/2022

Ben
Aged about 45 ………. Complainant
Residing at Mumbai

V/S

Martha
Aged about 43 …………. Respondent
Residing at Mumbai

Reference of the Dispute for Mediation as a formal disciplinary

action.

15
2.FACT OF DISPUTE

Marta works in the Information Department. Ben is her boss. She has
had difficulties arriving to work on time and is always apologetic, but
Ben feels she is just making excuses. Anger and resentment build as
the issue remains unresolved after several heated discussions. The two
find it difficult to converse without arguing. Ben does not want to fire
her-being a single mom Marta needs the job to support her children.
Marta truly makes an effort to be at work on time but trying to get
three young children ready for school can be difficult. Short of a
formal disciplinary action, they are sent for mediation to resolve their
problem.

3. MEDIATOR’S OPENING STATEMENT

• The mediator introduces himself by giving the information such

as his name & qualification.
• The mediator requests the parties & this counsels to introduce
themselves.
• The mediator expresses the hope that the matter would be
amicably resolved, in order to get the trust & confidence of each
party.
• In the opening statement, the mediator explain to the parties the
concept, process, advantages & stages of mediation.
• Also the ground rules of the mediation are told.
• Finally the mediator confirms that process is called by both the
parties & shall give them opportunity to get the doubts clarified .

16
4.Complainants statement

Complainant Details:
Ben aged about 45
Residing at Mumbai.

Complainant Ben has problem with his colleague martha who works
in the information department and arrives late to the work due to this
the work gets delayed for other workers.
Ben has warned martha many times about her late coming to the work
, but he feels that she is making up excuses every time.
Due to this there is a lot of arguments between them in the work
space.

5.Respondents statement

Respondent Details:
Martha aged about 43
Residing at Mumbai.

Marta who is the respondent of this case

has stated that it is difficult for her to come to
work on time as she is a single mother of three
children and making them ready for school and
coming to work is a hard task for her.
She has also asked a special permission to come a bit late to work ,
but this was not approved by Ben.
Being a single mother it is difficult for Martha to come to work on
time and this often led to heated arguments between Maratha and
Ben.

17
6.Complainants argument

Ben cannot allow martha to come late for work, as other workers
would also ask the same excuse to come late.
Martha is not ready to work for more hours compensating the time
lost.
As information department is the main source for other departments
to work, any delay in this department would lead to overall delay of
work.
Marta is also not willing to take up other similar jobs in the same
company.
This has been a great trouble to the company for overall development
due to delay in processing of information.
We kindly request Martha to either come on time or take up similar
job in the same company.

7.Respondents argument

In the early course of job of Martha she was together with her
husband and her children ,now in the Due course her husband has left
her with three children which is a great responsibility on the martha's
head being a single mother. This fact is clearly known to Ben , due to
which is not terminating her.
Getting the three children ready in the morning for school takes a lot
of time and also Martha has to do it all alone. This takes of time and
delays to her work.
When the fact was expressed to Ben, he thinks that Mata is making
excuses everyday.
This created a heated arguments between them , and made it hard to
work.

18
8.Identification of problem
After hearing both the parties the conciliator identify the problem that
Martha could not come to work on time due to her family
responsibility the conciliator convinces both the party to work
accordingly.
The problem has been identified that due to the delay of martha's
work in the informations department has led to the delay of the whole
overall progress of the company. The conciliator suggested martha to
take up similar role which started a different time so that she could
be on time for that work.
Ben also agreed to the same and was ready to offer a similar role in
the same company.

19
 9. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Date: 11\08\2022
Ben [complainant]
Martha [Respondent]
A Mediation was held between the parties as a disciplinary action of
the company on 11/08/2023 which briefly stated that the relevant
facts of the case disclosed by Ben that Martha was not making up to
work on time, had created a slow progress in the office. After
mediation, both Ben and Martha have agreed to settle the dispute as
follows,
1)Martha would be shifted to processing department.
2)She has agreed to come on time scheduled by the company for that
department.
3)Ben has also agreed to pay her , as per the company has prescribed
to pay for that department .
4)The transfer of Martha will not be considered a permanent transfer
as she would return back to information department after few months
5)These conditions have been agreed by both the parties, and they
have settled the dispute out of their own and free Will.
Complainant Respondent

Advocate: Advocate:

Copy of settlement will be given to both the parties.

Signature of Mediator:
WITNESS

20
 SIMULATION EXERCISE – 4
NEGOTIATION
Cause Title

Before the Negotiator

Udupi

BETWEEN
Pavan Kumar
Aged about 65 years
No.109,1st Cross,3rd Main
Vijayanagar, Udupi …..Claimant
And
Ravi Kumar
Aged about 49 years
No.92,11th cross,1st Main
JP Nagar, Udupi ….Respondent No.1

Amarender Reddy
Aged about 50 years
Residing in Udupi ….Respondent No.2

Reference of the Dispute to Negotiation

21
FACT OF DISPUTE

Ravi Kumar, Amarender Reddy, and Pavan Kumar are partners in M/s
Arunav Plastics, established in the year 2009(Jalgaon, Maharashtra,
India). Their shares are 30%,30%, 40% respectively. With a tagline
of, "Small Ideas, Big Revolutions" the firm is a leading manufacturer
and supplier of solar water pumps, plastic sheets, greenhouse, solar
water heating systems, PVC and PE piping systems known for its
high grade and quality products and for contributing in growth of
Indian economy. Sales of the firm grew from 10 lakhs to Rs 10 crores
by 2017 (X100). In a span of just 8 years, it opened 9 more
established manufacturing plants across the nation and fledged as a
brand, winning the golden trophy of "fastest-growing enterprise" in
the year 2017 Which was achieved through effectiveness and
efficiency with the guiding principle to meet customers' requirements
at a reasonable cost with intact quality. Adding by keeping up with
tech trends the firm even started online sales apart from dealing with
exclusive retailers. Pavan Kumar (managing partner) has wide
experience and commitment towards core ethical values, through
which he achieved an undisputed leadership position in the Plastic
market. He was lately burdened with work, as from their firm's well-
experienced, Four-floor supervisors (a chartered accountant and a
marketing manager), two-floor supervisors retired and the marketing
manager shifted to a competitive firm (2018) He is aged and ill, so
under pressure from family members wants to retire and sell his
shares The business is yielding high profits so both partners are
willing to buy Pavan Kumar's shares solely. Adding, if possible, want
to buy another partner's shares too, so the dispute arises. At this point,
Pavan Kumar decides to sell his entire shares to a third party. Because
of his ethics and values, he didn't will to hand his entire shares to a
partner solely when both contributed to the growth. Partners
vehemently opposed and allured him with extra money for the good
will. He remained intact and firmly decided to sell to both the partners
or to a third party taking his position. The internal unrest affected the

22
business and lead to negative growth. Customers started complaining
about the delay in delivery of products and also about its quality The
suppliers were not receiving payments on time, even when the firm
was known for timely payments. Pavan Kumar tried to explain to the
other partners to undertake the business jointly and also enlightened
them about new market opportunities in the plastic products
manufacturing business Unfortunately, despite all the best efforts
made by Pavan Kumar to overcome these problems, heated
conversations, reciprocal written threats, and notices of the partners
have resulted in a suspension of business dealings resulting in severe
losses and damages. As Pavan Kumar's health deteriorated further, the
Association of plastic product manufacturers, in order to protect the
image of the firm, insisted on settlement of the dispute between the
parties through

NEGOTIATORS OPENING STATEMENT

 Negotiator introduces himself by giving the information such as

his name and qualification. Negotiator requests the Parties and
their Counsels to introduce themselves and Negotiator greeted
thanks to Parties for coming up to Negotiation.
 Negotiator noticed that Dispute was related to the division of
shares of partnership firm.
 Negotiator expresses the hope that the matter would be
Amicably resolved, in order to get the truth and confidence of
each party.
 Being a Negotiator, I would like to Hear Oral Statement of Both
Disputed Parties And Hopes An Issue will be settled upon my
suggestion which deemed fit for both parties.

23
 STATEMENT BY FIRST PARTY
Claimant Details
Pavan Kumar
Aged about 65 years
No.109,1st Cross,3rd Main
Vijayanagar, Udupi

I, Pavan Kumar, in my true sense state the following claims:

 My Name is Pavan Kumar, Managing Partner To Arunav Plastics.

I would like to thank the opposite Counsel & My Relevant Partner
Ravi Kumar And Amarender Reddy to coming up to the
Negotiation session to discuss all our Dispute peacefully.
 My Relevant Partners share is 30% and 30% respectively and I
own 40% of shares of firm.
Therefore I am the Majority Holder in the Firm and I have
complete absolute authority to take decisions.
 Since four-floor supervisors[Charted Accountant & Marketing
Manager]two floor supervisors got retired & the marketing
manager shifted to a competitive firm(2018)
Because of this lot of Work Burden was there to me.
 I tried to explain to both partners to undertake the business jointly
and also enlightened them about the new market opportunities.
Despite of all my efforts to overcome this problem worsened the
situation instead.
 As I Am Aged and My Health Deteriorated and under pressure
from my family members & friends, I wanted to Retire & Sell my
40% shares to 3rd Person.

Dated:25/08/2023

[Claimant]

24
OPENING STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT
Respondent Details
Ravi Kumar
Aged about 49 years
No.92,11th cross,1st Main
JP Nagar, Mysore (Respondent No.1)
Amarender Reddy
Aged about 50 years
Residing in Mysore (Respondent No.2)
Both Parties, in our true sense state the following claims:
 We Both Are The Partners of Arunav Plastics and we thank Pavan
Kumar and his counsel for calling us to Negotiation. As a Partners
to a Firm, even we have Complete Authority to take decisions
regarding the firm.
 As Pavan Kumar said to Retire & sell his 40% shares to 3rd Party
we would like to extract for that. Since Pavan Kumar knows that
we both have been working from day one for the betterment firm
and we know top to bottom about the firm.
 We both have been working with Pavan Kumar since 8 years and
we have given all Time, Sweat, Patience, Money to this firm.
Therefore Our Firm also became the Best Firm in the Country.
 We Both Have wide Experience and we know the Advantages and
Disadvantages of the Firm.
 So We Both Believe that Pavan Kumar have to sell Entire 40% of
shares to us who are already existing parties to the firm.
Dated:25/08/2023
RaviKumar(Res.No.1)

Amarender Reddy(Res.No.2)
25
BARGAINING/PROBLEM SOLVING
 Pavan Kumar as being a (managing partner) have a right to decide
to whom the shares to be given. Now Considering my shares 40%
and both my partners are having 60% of shares. So majority of
shares is with my relevant partners itself.
 As my part of shares that is 40% will be given to 3rd party
wouldn’t make any difference. Because Adding New Partner to
the firm who is Trustworthy person and have wide experience in
running the firm which would create new skill and grab trophies
to the firm in subsequent years.
 Ravi Kumar and Amarender Reddy raised their voice that we
have been working for this firm since 9years and we are already
existing partners to the firm. So Bringing new person and selling
entire 40% to 3rd party is not acceptable.
 The Existing Partners didn’t accepted the offer made by Pavan
Kumar because 10% of shares doesn’t deal anything so partners
asked for 30% of shares to them, so that remaining 10% can be
given to 3rd party.
 And Also Partners (RaviKumar and Amarenderreddy)
highlighted that since from past 9years we have contributed best
to the firm, Now adding new person who may take major part
which is equal to us is not acceptable.
 Pavan Kumar re considering his offer that he accepted to give
15% of shares to firm and 25% shares to 3rd party.
 The existing partners aware not willing to take the offer made by
Pavan because every firm is different, settling in firm,
understanding the firm takes time to new person. Though we are
aware of everything about firm. We think Pavan Kumar should
negotiate more. Which makes a fair deal.
 At Last Pavan Kumar came to the conclusion to give 20% of
shares to existing partners and 20% of shares to the 3rd Person.

26
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Date: 25/08/2023
Pavan Kumar [Claimant]
Ravi Kumar [Respondent No.1]
Amarender Reddy [Respondent No.2]
Disputes and Differences have arisen between the parties as referred in
the claims. The parties desire fully and finally resolved through
negotiation session.
After negotiation parties have agreed to settle disputes as follows:
It is agreed that Mr. Pavan Kumar should give his 30% of shares to
firm.
It is agreed that remaining 10% of shares will be given to 3rd party.
It is also agreed that along with shares to 3rd party, the authority will be
given as to manage two plants in production.
The contents of the settlement have been explained to parties and copy
of settlement will be given to both the parties.
CLAIMANT RESPONDENT

Pavan Kumar (Complaint) RaviKumar & Amarender

Reddy (Respondent)

Date:
Signature of Negotiato

27