Bombay HC: Mediation Act 2023 Does Not Confer Power On Courts To Mandate Mediation Without Mutual Consent Of Parties

Conclusion :-

15. The Mediation Act, 2023 does not provide for any mandatory

mediation nor does it confer any power on the court to order

mediation without consent of all parties. The procedure prescribed

under the Act is for a mediation agreement to be executed in writing to submit to mediation. Thus, the mediation contemplated by the Mediation Act is not compulsory but a consensual mediation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5241 OF 2025

IN

SUIT NO. 250 OF 2023

Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani  Vs  Sugandha Hiremath 

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04 May, 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11441

Print Page

India Launches Nationwide "Mediation For Nation" Campaign to To Settle Pending Cases Across Nation

 India is set to initiate an ambitious 90-day nationwide mediation initiative aimed at resolving the country's mounting case backlogs through alternative dispute resolution methods.

Campaign Overview

The "Mediation For the Nation" campaign will commence on July 1, 2025, and run through September 30, 2025, marking a comprehensive effort to tackle pending litigation across the country. This pan-India initiative has been conceptualized by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, representing a top-level judicial commitment to promoting mediation as a viable alternative to traditional court proceedings.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Plaintiff in Maharashtra will get refund of entire court fees if case is settled in any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of CPC after court fees amendment Act 2018

 As extracted supra, the High Court in the impugned judgment had made a suggestion to the State legislature that the differences in the court fees in Lok Adalat, vis-à-vis, the forms of ADR should be done away with the view to promote the adaptation of such methods of dispute resolution among the public. It has been brought to our attention that the State legislature has indeed carried out such an amendment to the MCFA, 1959 and Section 16A has been introduced therein by way of Maharashtra Act No. X of 2018, the relevant extract of which reads under:

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. X OF 2018.

(First published, after having received the assent of the Governor in the "Maharashtra Government Gazette", on the 16th January 2018.)

An Act further to amend the Maharashtra Court-fees Act.

WHEREAS it is expedient further to amend the Maharashtra Court-fees Act, for the purposes hereinafter appearing; it is hereby enacted in the Sixty-eighth Year of the Republic of India as follows:

2. After Section 16 of the Maharashtra Court-fees Act (hereinafter referred to as "principal Act"), the following Section shall be inserted, namely:

16A. Where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and suit is disposed of by the court by adaptation of any of the modes prescribed under the said section, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.''. {Para 22}

23. The effect of the above being that for the time when the amendment to the MCFA, 1959 granting partial or complete refund, as the case may be, in accordance with Section 43 as amended, the persons whose matters were settled by way of ADR would not be entitled to 100% refund. Any matter settled under the processes mentioned in Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure after the coming into force of the above-extracted amendment, such parties shall receive refund of court fees in its entirety.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 14742 of 2024.

Decided On: 19.12.2024

Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1377/2024.

Print Page

Mediation Act, 2023: A New Era for Alternative Dispute Resolution in India

 The Mediation Act, 2023 is a significant legislative framework in India designed to promote and regulate mediation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Here are the key features and implications of the Act:

 Key Features of the Mediation Act, 2023

1. Promotion of Mediation

The Act aims to enhance the use of mediation, particularly institutional mediation, to resolve disputes efficiently. It encourages parties to explore mediation before initiating litigation, thereby reducing court congestion.

Print Page

Government of India Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts of Domestic Public Procurement dated 03.06.2024

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NDNwONBb1IZSAVzlEgd14Fb_TKBMqVwU/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

What is role of counseling and mediation in matrimonial conflict resolution in the context of S 89 C.PC?

 Counseling and mediation play important roles in matrimonial conflict resolution, especially in the context of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) in India. Section 89 encourages parties involved in disputes, including matrimonial conflicts, to explore alternative dispute resolution methods before resorting to litigation. Here's how counseling and mediation are involved in matrimonial conflict resolution under Section 89 C.P.C:

• Initiation and Referral:

• Section 89 of the C.P.C empowers courts to refer parties to mediation or counseling to resolve their disputes. In matrimonial cases, the court may suggest or order mediation or counseling before proceeding with the trial.

• Counseling:

• Counseling is a process where a trained counselor helps individuals or couples explore their issues, emotions, and communication problems. In matrimonial conflicts, counseling can provide a safe space for spouses to discuss their concerns, work on their relationship, and explore possible solutions. Counselors can assist with improving communication and understanding between the parties.

Print Page

Should the court reject the plaint if the plaintiff fails to comply Pre-litigation mediation as mandated U/S 12A of The Commercial courts' Act?

 We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court as explained earlier in the judgment. We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed. Still further, we however direct that in case plaints have been already rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief. {Para 92}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. of 2022

Patil Automation Private Limited and Others Vs

Rakheja Engineers Private Limited 

Decided on August 17, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028

Print Page

Can the court enforce a settlement done in mediation if one party contends that he was compelled to sign a mediation agreement?

  For all these reasons, I hold that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the power to refer thematter before it to mediation applying the principles of Section 89 of CPC, record the compromise and pass an order in terms of the settlement applying the principles of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

11. When the parties settle the dispute at mediation by

signing an agreement detailing the procedure to be followed to

work out the settlement, certainly that agreement is having all

the characteristics of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The scheme of

Order XXIII Rule 3 is to avoid multiplicity of litigation to enable the parties to settle their dispute once and for all. When the parties agreed to settle the dispute in terms of compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, one of the parties cannot unilaterally withdraw from the compromise. The Explanation to Order XXIII Rule 3 makes it clear that only an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act could be considered as not lawful agreement for the purpose of the Rule. Chapter II of the Indian Contract Act contains provisions relating to voidable contracts and void agreements. The petitioner has absolutely no case that the compromise is vitiated by any one of the grounds enumerated in Chapter II of the Indian Contract Act.

The only contention taken by the petitioner is that he was

compelled to sign the mediation settlement agreement without

understanding the consequences of its terms. So long as there is

no contention that the compromise is vitiated by one of the

grounds enumerated in Chapter II of the Indian Contract Act, the parties of the compromise are bound to honour the compromise and the court has the duty to enforce it.The Apex Court in Salkia Businessmens' Association and Others v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 688] has held that the terms of the compromise which become part of the order of the court should be strictly enforced. It was observed that if the courts are not to honour and implement their own orders, and encourage party litigants - be they public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short circuit and give a go-by to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the court - the rule of law will certainly become a casualty in the process - a costly consequence to be zealously averted by all and at any rate by the highest Courts in the States in the country. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(CRL.) NO. 390 OF 2020

MATHEW DANIEL Vs  LEENA MATHEW, 

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Dated: 16th day of August, 2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether domestic violence case can be settled in mediation?

The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended

that the default clause in Ext.P2 does not contemplate the

recovery of `25,00,000/- promised to be paid, but instead

contemplates the continuance of the proceedings. The counsel

further submitted that since the petitioner herein has expressed

his inability to comply with the settlement, the default clause

would come into operation and in such a case, the court cannot

make an order based on the settlement and can make an order

only after sufficient enquiry is carried out. Without conducting

any enquiry, the court below went wrong in ordering the

petitioner to pay a sum of `25,00,000/-, argued the counsel. I

cannot subscribe to the said argument. Once a settlement has

been arrived at between the parties in a lis, that concludes the

dispute resolved in the settlement and the parties are bound by

it. Based on the settlement arrived at the mediation, the parties

cannot be directed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court

to ensure that the compromise is worked out. Such a procedure

would be against the spirit of the mediation process itself. In

Salkia Businessmens' Association (supra), the Apex Court has

held that viewing breach of the terms of the compromise as a

matter of mere contract between the parties and disregarding it

has a disastrous effect on rule of law. As stated already, the

Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act has the power to refer the matter before it to mediation, record the compromise and pass an order in terms of the settlement. The order so passed in respect of the matters that fall within Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can be enforced in accordance with the law. As far as the settlement that falls outside the ambit of Sections 18 to 22 is concerned, the parties are bound to follow the terms of the settlement. {Para 13}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(CRL.) NO. 390 OF 2020

MATHEW DANIEL Vs  LEENA MATHEW, 

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Dated: 16th day of August, 2022

Print Page

Bombay HC: S 12-A Commercial Courts Act on Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement Is A Mandatory Provision

 Thus, we hold that section 12A of the Act of 2015 is mandatory, and a commercial suit of specified value which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Act of 2015, cannot not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. Considering the object and purpose of Section 12A of being rooted in the public interest, there is no question of it being waived by a party. The findings in the impugned order to the contrary are set aside. {Para 34}

Bombay High Court

JUSTICE C. V. BHADANG JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR

Deepak Raheja Vs. Ganga Taro Vazirani

COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 11950 OF 2021

1st October 2021

Author: Nitin Jamdar, J.

Citation: 2021 NearLaw (BombayHC) Online 1747

Print Page

Whether S 12-A Commercial Courts Act on Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement Is A Mandatory Provision?

Though, the word 'shall' in Section 12-A of the Act, sounds Prelitigation mediation is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to explore Settlement before filing suit under Commercial Court Act, the Rule framed use the word 'Shall' and makes it an optional. Also even if one party go for pre-litigation mediation the other party may conveniently abstain from participating in the mediation and make it a non-starter. Even otherwise, mediator can proceed only if the both the parties appear and give consent to participate in the mediation process. Thus, it is very clear that on combined reading of the Commercial Courts

Act and the Rules framed thereunder, pre-litigation mediation is subject to urgency for any interim relief and the consent of the sparing parties.

25. In such circumstances, the Harmonious Interpretation takes us to the irresistible conclusion that Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, is not a mandatory provision. The right to access justice which is a Constitutional Right cannot be denied or deprived for not resorting to mediation. The Court is not

substitute to Alternative Dispute Redressal, it is otherwise. The litigant cannot be denied the doors of justice for directly approaching the Court without exploring the possibility of mediation. There can be no prejudice to the defendant, if the defendant is ready for mediation, even after Institution of the suit. Also there is no impediment either for the party or for the Court to refer the pending matter to be resolved through mediation or any other Alternative Dispute Redressal mechanism. This provision is meant for the parties to work out an amicably settlement without involving in the adversary system of litigation. The intention of this Section is not to prevent access to justice or to aid anyone who refuse to subject himself to the judicial process. The intention is to avoid the procedural rigor and to arrive an amicable win-win settlement. Any other interpretation to Section 12-A of the Act contrary to the intention will amount to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, this Court holds that there is no ground to entertain this Application seeking rejection of plaint. Hence, Application is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 A.No.35 of 2021 in C.S.No.669 of 2019

Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs  Gold Star Line Limited,

Coram:

 DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Pronounced on : 17.08.2021

Print Page

Tips for Successful mediation

1. Prepare well – strip it down to the big, and impactful, points 2. Make your private risk analysis serious and realistic, and seek the mediator’s input into it. 3. Engage courteously where possible, because a rude manner can detract from a powerful argument. 4. Use your client’s strengths. They may be a better negotiator than you! 5. Let the client judge any offer before you do. They will often have their own private reasons for rejecting or accepting it. hashtag#mediation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Disputes About Properties Which Are Not Subject Matter Of Litigation Can Be Settled In Mediation

 In the Mediation it is always open for the

parties to explore the possibility of an overall amicable settlement

including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the

proceedings before the Court. That is the benefit of the Mediation.

In the Mediation parties may try for amicable settlement, which is

reduced into writing and/or a Settlement Agreement and thereafter

it becomes the part of the Court’s Order and the Court disposes of

the matter in terms of the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter the

order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable

irrespective of the fact whether the Settlement Agreement is with

respect to the properties which was/were not the subject matter of

the proceedings before the Court. Thereafter the order passed by

the Court in terms of the Settlement is binding to the parties and

is required to be acted upon and/or complied with and as observed

above the same is executable.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CONTEMPT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2018

KAUSHALIYA Vs  JODHA RAM 

Dated:November 25, 2019

M. R. Shah, J.

Print Page

Pre-Institution Mediation under commercial courts Act 2018

12-A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.—(1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation.

NOTIFICATION

Noti. No. S.O. 3232(E), dated July 3, 2018.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Central Government hereby authorises the State Authority and District Authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation and settlement under Chapter IIIA of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Print Page

Whether Advocate can be compelled to disclose professional communication with his client?

 It appears from the materials on record that, the examination of petitioner's lawyer as a witness in the present proceeding is meant for eliciting certain essential facts in disproof of allegations of fraud. The essential facts include the answers of the lawyer as to whether the client signed in her presence and she had explained to her the terms and conditions of the agreement before it was signed. The witness, in our opinion, cannot withhold such essential answers claiming privilege under Section 126 of the Act. Such information are very valuable for the decision of the matter in dispute before the Family court and can never be taken as offending the bar against disclosure of the professional communications saved by law. They do not have any bearing or relevance to the matters connected with the engagement of a lawyer for conduct of the litigation.

11. The impugned order of the lower court in I.A. 1833/2018 permitting examination of petitioner's lawyer cannot therefore, be said to suffer from any illegality warranting our interference. Same is the view that we take in respect of order on I.A. 1832/2018 also as we deem it just and proper to give the respondent one more opportunity to re-examine P.W. 1 with respect to the facts he had omitted during her former examination.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if the courts tend to allow the parties to cite and examine the lawyer on the opposite side as witness, it would be very embarrassing and also demeaning to the practitioners of law. We are of the clear view that the courts have necessarily to avoid such embarrassment being caused to the lawyers and this could be ensured by permitting examination of lawyers only in cases where their testimony in court is absolutely essential and inevitable. The court shall be circumspect in summoning lawyers cited as witnesses, whether by their own clients or opposite parties, except when their examination is unavoidable. The request for examination should not be granted mechanically and for mere asking. If a particular matter or information could be effectively proved by other evidence, the courts could certainly decline to order examination of the lawyer to the extent possible. No hard and fast rule, however, could be laid in this respect and it is ultimately what a court informed by prudence and wisdom would decide in a particular case before it, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (FC) No. 228 of 2018

Decided On: 15.01.2019

 Reshma Majeed  Vs. Shameer Babu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.K. Abdul Rehim and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 Kerala 89

Print Page

When court should strike off mediation report?

Going by Rule 23 of the Rules, a mediator is not entitled to communicate to the court except in respect of the matters mentioned in the Rule. Sub clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 do not cause any difficulty for interpretation. What is the meaning of the words "getting advice on procedural matters with the consent of the parties" occurring in Sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 is the question which arises for decision. Sri Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, submitted that the mediator has only sought the advice on procedural matters and therefore, the mediation report is legal and proper. A mediator can get advice on procedural matters only with the consent of parties. If the parties do not give consent, the mediator has no right to get advice on procedural matters. In the present case, the petitioner was not present at all before the mediator. She expressed her view that she was not participating in the mediation. The mediator, therefore, could communicate to the court only in the manner provided under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 and submit a failure report. In the absence of parties, the mediator had no jurisdiction to seek the advice on procedural matters. One of the parties having expressed her reluctance to appear before the mediator, the mediator was not justified in arriving at "findings and conclusions" and thereafter seeking directions from the court. Even the directions sought for are not on procedural matters or to enable the mediator to carry on the mediation proceedings in a particular manner, but the directions are sought to be issued to the parties. The mediator was not justified in undertaking a video conferencing with some of the parties in the absence of commencement of mediation in accordance with law. No mediation at all took place. On the refusal of a party to appear before the mediator, there was no justification for the mediator to undertake an expedition with respect to the disputes between the parties. Conducting a video conferencing, in the absence of one of the parties, was also quite illegal. Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of the Rules. Rule 22 provides that no mediator shall be held liable for anything bona fide done or omitted to be done by him during the mediation proceedings. The prayer made in the application is not to take any action against the mediator. No action is sought to be taken against the mediator. Immunity contemplated under Rule 22 does not take away the power of the court to say that the mediation report is not liable to be accepted or to strike off the mediation report or to hold that the mediator acted without jurisdiction. The very appointment of mediator by the court carries with it the power to cancel it also. If the mediator has misconducted himself or if the mediation report is otherwise illegal being contrary to the Rules, the court in which the proceedings are pending would have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders with regard to the acceptability or otherwise of the mediation report. Immunity under Rule 22 does not deter the court from doing so.

We are satisfied that the mediator travelled beyond his powers and the mediation report is liable to be struck off, except to the extent of communication that the mediation failed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

W.P. (Crl.) No. 278 of 2012

Decided On: 06.07.2012

 Prabhavathy, K. Vs. Director General of Police and Others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mr. Justice K.T. Sankaran and Mr. Justice M.L. Joseph Francis

Citation: ILR 2012(3) Kerala 922

Print Page

Whether a party can back out from mediation settlement after pocketing money under said settlement?

In this case, disputes involved in the suit had been referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre vide order dated 5th May, 2011 within the meaning of Section 89(1)(d) and the settlement has been arrived at before the learned Mediator after comprehensive mediation sessions held as many as on eight occasions in the presence of the counsel for the parties and thereafter, parties had reached an amicable settlement, which has been reduced in writing by the learned Mediator and has been duly signed by not only the parties but their counsels as well on 5th August, 2011. Thereafter, Mediator has sent the 'Settlement Agreement' to the court. No such objection was raised either by Defendant No. 1 or her counsel immediately after the settlement was drawn and signed by the parties on 5th August, 2011. It is only when the matter has been taken up by the Court after about fifteen days the new counsel for Defendant No. 1 has tried to assail the settlement on flimsy grounds, even though Settlement Agreement had been acted upon, inasmuch as, Defendant No. 1 had accepted two post dated cheques bearing Nos. 520237 and 520238 from Defendant No. 2; Defendant No. 2 has also paid pay order for `15 lakhs to the Plaintiff in Court on 30th August, 2011.

12. In my view, if such pleas are sustained the very sanctity and purpose of an amicable settlement through the process of mediation, would stand totally eroded. In Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gases Ltd. 2005 (2) AD Del 534 though that case arose out of the arbitration proceedings, a Single Judge of this Court has observed as under:

If such pleas are sustained, the sanctity and purpose of 'amicable settlements' between the parties would stand totally eroded. Amicable resolution of disputes and negotiated settlements is 'public policy in India'. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as Legal Services Authorities Act, 1995 call upon the Courts to encourage settlements of legal disputes through negotiations between the parties. If amicable settlements are discarded and rejected on flimsy pleas, the parties would be wary of entering into negotiated settlements and making payments thereunder as a shrewed party after entering into a negotiated settlement, may pocket the amount received under it and thereafter challenge the settlement and reagitate the dispute causing immeasurable loss and harassment to the party making payment thereunder. This tendency has to be checked and such litigants discouraged by the Courts. It would be in consonance with public policy of India.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) No. 2248/2010

Decided On: 01.09.2011

 Naveen Kumar Vs.  Khilya Devi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Pathak, J.

Print Page

Whether parties can back out from mediation settlement?

 Defendants have not disputed the fact that they have signed the settlement agreement before the Learned Mediator. The said agreement is duly signed by all the parties and the same agreement is also signed by their respective counsel. The only reason to delete para VI of the settlement as given by the defendant No. 2 is that the plaintiff has embarrassed the defendant No. 2 in the presence of her family members at her matrimonial home.

19. I feel that it is not a valid ground to set aside the settlement reached between the parties. On emotional ground the defendant No. 2 cannot turn around and oppose the said settlement which has already been agreed by the parties at the time of modification proceedings. No sufficient reasons in this respect have been assigned by the defendant No. 2, therefore, prayer made in the application cannot be accepted.

20. The similar situation has arisen in the matter reported in Jasbir and Ors. v. State and Anr. 142 (2007) DLT 141 where the parties after settlement before the Learned Mediator tried to wriggle out of the settlement proceedings, which arrived at the time of Mediation proceedings, wherein this Court in para 9 has observed as under:

The settlement was arrive at during mediation proceedings. The Legislature has amendment Section 89 of the code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an all round attempt by the Legislature and Judiciary, as well as the Executive, to promote the settlement of disputes through the process of Mediation. Therefore, once disputes between the parties have been settled by the process of mediation, it would be in the public interest as well as to attach importance to such a process and treat the settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise, the movement of mediation may itself suffer if the parties are given to understand that even after they agree for settlement, one of the parties can still back out.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.A. No. 12888/2008 in C.S. (OS) No. 1495/2005

Decided On: 06.07.2009

Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Vs. Purshotam Lal Bajaj and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan Singh, J.

Print Page

Whether court can strike off defence of party if he fails to appear before mediator?

The reading of the above provision makes it very clear that neither Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure nor Order 10 Rule 1-A nor the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules 2005 nor the Karnataka Code of Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 provide for striking of the defence for non-appearance of the parties before the Mediator. Only Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Karnataka Code of Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005 contemplates that the Court may impose cost for non-appearance of the parties before the Mediator. Hence, I am of the view that the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge striking off the defence of Defendants 1 to 3 is contrary to law and Rules referred above. If the parties fail to appear before the Mediator, the Court may impose some penalty fixing some other date to appear before the Mediator and accordingly the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge striking off the defence of the Defendants is liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 2208/2009 (GM- CPC)

Decided On: 16.04.2010

 Rudraaradya Vs.  Nanjundappa @ Nanjundaswamy and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Manohar, J.

Citation: ILR 2011Kar 221

Print Page

Guidelines of Supreme court regarding confidentiality in Mediation

 In this connection, we would like to state that mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceedings. This is unlike proceedings in Court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, then the mediator should send the agreement signed 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. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.

3. We are compelled to observe this because the mediators should know what kind of reports they should send to the Courts. The report sent in this core should not have mentioned the proposals made by the parties, but should only have stated that the mediation was unsuccessful.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 1095 of 2008

Decided On: 07.12.2010

 Moti Ram  Vs.  Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 

Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.

Citation: (2011)1 SCC 466

Print Page