Commencement of conciliation proceedings

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Afcons Infra. Ltd. vs Cherian Varkey Constn Co. P. LTD

   Supreme Court of India 26 Jul 2010 Binding (SC) - Landmark clarification of law on Section 89 CPC application Reportable Reportable; Citation in SCC expected: [2010] Supreme Court Cases (as Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Constr

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A civil court cannot refer a suit to arbitration under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless all parties to the suit agree to such reference. Even though Section 89 mandates courts to refer pending suits to alternative dispute resolution processes, reference to arbitration specifically requires mutual consent of all parties, as arbitration is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which contemplates the existence of an arbitration agreement. While non-adjudicatory ADR processes (Lok Adalat, mediation, judicial settlement) can be imposed by court discretion after identifying suitable cases, adjudicatory arbitration process cannot be imposed without party consent. The proper procedure requires courts to invoke Section 89 suo moto after completion of pleadings and before framing issues, consider whether the case falls under excluded categories, and only for suitable cases, explain the five ADR options to parties and ascertain their preferences, with arbitration and conciliation requiring mutual consent.

   On this section: Governs procedure for reference to conciliation including invitation, acceptance, and appointment of conciliators

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.