More handpicked essays just for you.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies And Methods
Alternative dispute resolution theories
The case about arbitration
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The dispute resolution is mainly done by the judiciary and n corporate also mainly the disputes went to the judiciary initially. The Courts take a lot of time to come up with an judgment often due to the rigorous procedural laws n action and a lot of rules to be followed. The companies now a days sort for dispute redressal methods which is less cumbersome and sometimes costly. Therefore the companies prefer to go for arbitration or Alternate dispute resolution.
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a medium of resolving dispute outside the formal legal system. There is a long and old tradition in India encouraging resolution of disputes informally, wherein disputes are referred to third parties. The ADR mechanism consists of negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration and an array of other hybrid procedures. ADR has witnessed phenomenal growth over the past several years to include many areas in addition to the resolution of traditional commercial dispute through mediation, as a significant first step towards the development of this process.
As a part of the effort to make the judiciary work in a more
…show more content…
It has the following main aspects:
Procedural
The parties are allowed to concede to the system to be trailed by arbitral tribunal in leading the procedures. On the off chance that the gatherings neglect to concur upon the procedural law, the arbitral tribunal may direct the assertion in such way, as it considers proper. The arbitral tribunal is not bound by any specialized guidelines of method, which a Court in India must take after. Be that as it may, the tenets of common equity can't be overlooked.
Venue of arbitration
The parties are allowed to alter a venue of their decision, coming up short which the arbitral tribunal, keeping in perspective the comfort of the gatherings, may settle the spot where discretion listening to should
Ulrich, G. (1999). Widening the circle: Adapting traditional Indian dispute resolution methods to implement alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice in modern communities. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy. 20, (2), 419-452.
as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the
This statement is further elaborated by Schmitz who states that the parties of the arbitral proceedings have to respect and maintain whatever they have learnt in the arbitration as secret. The press and the public lose the access to the hearings and the awards. The documents used in the arbitral proceeding would not be admissible in court proceedings. But in reality this type of secrecy does not exist in arbitral proceedings since certain information need to be disclosed for the public welfare. As one author has noted, “Privacy is concerned with the right of persons other than the arbitrators, parties and their necessary representatives and witnesses, to attend the arbitration hearing and to know about the arbitration. Confidentiality by contrast, is concerned with information relating to the content of the proceedings, evidence and documents, addresses, transcripts of the hearings or the award.” The general practice for determining the issue of confidentiality is to see through the customs, usage and whether confidentiality has been impliedly included in the arbitration
Throughout the years there have been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented, they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply, among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved.
The decisions of the group is governed by a vote, majority of the votes wins the dispute. If in any case there should be an even number of votes on both sides of the decision, a conference is held where all members must speak their mind on why the decision they chose is correct. If the decision remains at a 50/50 vote,
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
In this paper we will review three scenarios of conflicts where I will provide my opinion on whether alternative dispute resolution would be preferable or litigation. Firstly, we must understand what Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR encompasses a number of various options for resolving disputes and conflicts of various natures. Some forms of ADR that you may be familiar with include mediation, negotiation, and arbitration (Lau & Johnson, 2011).
At the same time, it is also important that when dealing with cases in which top officials of the government or members of the parliament are involved, it is important that judges or the court hearing the case or the people who are responsible for the ultimate ruling or judgment that will be provided for the case are often manipulated and provided with various offers and incentives from different stakeholders present in the case to turn the judgment of the case in their favor (Hamilton,
Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the government judicial process. There has been moves against ADR in the past by entities of many political parties and their associates, despite this, ADR has gained inclusive acceptance among both the broad community and the legal profession in past years. In fact, many courts now entail parties to remedy to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before allowing the parties' cases to be tried. The increasing attractiveness of ADR can be clarified by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to obtain larger control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
... with the aggrieved worker and representative meeting with the supervisor involved, followed by an appeal system with strict time limits and ultimately ending in binding arbitration. When management and the union cannot resolve a grievance submitted by a union, the union must decide whether to proceed to the final step of the grievance procedure: arbitration. Arbitration is an adversary proceeding like a trial in court. An arbitrator’s function is usually to interpret the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, not to apply his or her standards of what is right in a given situation. The courts have sought to compel labour and management to a peaceful resolution of grievances through arbitration. The Supreme Court has given support to the arbitration process in a series of decisions, and judicial deferral to arbitration has become a basic tenet of national labour policy.
However the Criminal Procedure Code section 226/1has recently amended a new revision. The court has the authority to permit the use of discretion. It has widened and is not as strict as the past. This section amended new revision which provides a flexible law that can be applied to the situation in each case. If the hearing of evidence benefits the justice, fundamental rights and freedoms of the people “…evidence will be more advantageous in rendering justice than being disadvantageous due to an impact on the standard of criminal justice system or basic right and liberty of
Not all disputes are resolved in the courts of law. There is elaborate provision for certain disputes
Mediation is a form of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation is a process which it assists disputed parties to arrive to a mutually agreed resolution without going to court. As the out of court problem solving approach, mediation is a more convenient way for parties which trying to avoid the hassle and loving some flexibility from the more rigid court procedure. Mediation can be said as an informal process of which parties during this process is encouraged to work together among the disputed parties in good faith in order to solve their problems and disputes at a lower financial cost and it consume lesser time as opposed to the court procedure. Mediation recently has become more common as one of dispute resolution process especially for disputes which have relations to divorce matter, child custody or even for child visitation especially for its privacy and confidentiality.
...ect appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decisions of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the aggrieved party could move this court under Article 136 of the Constitution."