1 / 33

ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL ( A. D. R. )

ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL ( A. D. R. ). T. Mookherjee ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE. NORTH 24 PARGANAS And EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN

jacob
Download Presentation

ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL ( A. D. R. )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL ( A. D. R. ) T. Mookherjee ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH 24 PARGANAS And EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE BARASAT (SADAR)

  2. “To no man will we deny, to no man will we sell, or delay, justice or right” -        Magna Carta – 1215

  3. Access to Justice • Basic human rights • Dispensation of Justice - A major function of the State • Justice-delivered – Judicial institutions •  Method – Adversary/adjudicatory • ( Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence )

  4. Adversary / Adjudicatory System:- • Parties fight • Judge, a neutral umpire •  Decision – comparative merit

  5. Major drawbacks • Parties’ participation – minimum • Technicalities – slow progress •  Expensive • Win-lose situation •  Accumulation of arrears

  6. Term A.D.R.  Developed in USA • A.D.R. – resolution of disputes with assistance of impartial third party

  7. Common A.D.R. Systems • Arbitration • Agreement between the parties •  Award by Arbitrator

  8. Conciliation  Agreement between the parties  Active role of conciliator  No award  Mediation Facilitates settlement between the parties themselves

  9. A.D.R.s • Very effective in:- • Domestic • International • Commercial disputes

  10. A.D.Rs – benefits • Low costs and formalities •  Expeditious • Parties’ participation – maximum •  Result – win - win

  11. Limitation of A.D.Rs • Not workable in all disputes/penal offences • Hidden costs • Awards challengeable •  Chances of failure

  12. Indian Scenario • Ancient India – Disputes/Civil disputes-settled locally-system simple  Institutional delivery system/Adversary system introduced by British Rulers

  13. Constitutional Commitment • Right to fair and speedy justice - fundamental right (Art. 21) •  Equal justice – free legal aid (Art. 39A)

  14. Dimension of the problem • Cases pending - end of 2005 • High Courts (Civ. And Crl.) – 35,21,283 •  Average institution and disposal per year 14,00,000 – 12,00,000

  15. District Courts • Cases pending - end of 2005 – 2,56,54,251 • Average institution per year – 1,60,00,000 (Approx.) •  Average disposal per year - 1,50,00,000 (Approx.)

  16. Strength of Judges  High Courts – 726 – Vacancy – 138  District Courts (30.06.06) – 14,582 – vacancy -2860 Ratio of Judges – Population  12/13 Judges per Million Recommendation – 50 per Million.

  17. Expenditure  India – 0.2% of G.N.P. U.K. – 4.3% of G.N.P. U.S.A – 1.4% of G.N.P. Singapore – 1.20 % of G.N.P. Half of the expenditure raised from judiciary itself

  18. Clearance of backlog – A distant dream Resort to A.D.R.s – A solution

  19. Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996 • Sec. 2 to 43 – Arbitration •  Sec. 61 to 81 - Conciliation

  20. Arbitration :– • Contractual – future and present dispute • Award :– • Executable – challengeable – limited ground

  21. Conciliation • Present dispute • Invitation by one – accepted • Conciliator’s role – agreement – • Enforceable

  22. Sec. 80 / O. XXVII R. 5B C.P.C.  Scope of amicable settlement in suits involving State – Act of public officer – Court to assist

  23. Sec. 89 C.P.C. •  Duty of the Court •  Element of settlement – formulation of terms of settlement – reference to arbitration / conciliation / Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat / Mediation. • (2003) 1 S.C.C., 49 • (2005) 6 S.C.C. , 344

  24. Lok Adalat • Best performing A.D.R. system • Introduced by Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 • Periodical Lok Adalats – all disputes • Permanent Lok Adalat – Public utility Services only • ( Not yet established in all states )

  25. Disputes settled within legal framework through negotiations • Active role by Lok Adalat Judges • Organized by State Authority/District Authority • Supreme Court L.S. Committee/High Court L.S. Committee/Taluk L.S. Committee

  26. Disputes settled within legal framework through negotiations-II •  All cases except non-compoundable offences • Pre-litigation disputes • Executable decree / no appeal

  27. Merits of settlement in Lok Adalats • No court fees / no costs • Lawyers not essential • Speedy / single day disposal • Involvement of the parties / simple procedures

  28. Cases settled in Lok Adalats upto 30.09.2006 :– 2, 02, 93, 952

  29. Nyaya Panchayet • An effective ADR • Model bill drafted •  Uniform law in the process

  30. Role of Executive Officers • Sec. 80 C.P.C./ Order 27 Rule 5B C.P.C. • Members of different committees under L.S.A. Act • In-house mechanism in all governmental departments

  31. Aim Reduction of load from conventional courts – the demand of the day

  32. Conclusion A supplementary system – Not a substitute

  33. Thank you

More Related