Definition of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
Justice Swatanter Kumar :Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Powertech World Wide Ltd. v. Delvin International General Trading LLC has examined the definition of an 'arbitration agreement' in the light of various judicial pronouncements. The question posed to the Court in this case was whether the clause in the agreement between the parties constituted a valid and binding arbitration agreement or not? While answering the question in the affirmative, the Supreme Court held as under;
9. When the matter was being heard, a question had been raised as to whether the arbitration agreement as contained in the Purchase Contract and reproduced supra, was a binding arbitration agreement enforceable in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act?
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that from the language of the arbitration clause itself, it is unambiguously clear that there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The respondent having failed to act despite notice, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the words `shall' and `or' appearing in the arbitration clause have to be given their true meaning. The expression `shall' has to be construed mandatorily while the expression `or' has to be read as disjunctive. Upon taking this as the correct approach, the arbitration agreement would be binding upon the parties as the expression `settled amicably between both the parties' cannot be construed as a condition precedent to the invocation of the arbitration agreement and the reference to arbitration being an alternative and agreed remedy, the petitioner may unequivocally be allowed to invoke the arbitration agreement.
11. The aforesaid contentions have been raised by the advocates for the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 719] wherein this Court had taken the view that such an arbitration clause would not have satisfied the pre-requisites of a valid arbitration reference. In that case, this Court was concerned with Clause 16 of the contract between the parties that read as under:
(16) If during the continuance of the partnership or at any time afterwards any dispute touching the partnership arises between the partners, the same shall be mutually decided by the partners or shall be referred for arbitration if the parties so determine. (emphasis supplied)
12. The Court felt that the main attribute of an arbitration agreement, namely, consensus ad idem to refer the disputes to arbitration, is missing in Clause 16 relating to settlement of disputes. Therefore, it is not an arbitration agreement as defined under Section 7 of the Act. In absence of an arbitration agreement, the question of exercising power under Section 11 of the Act to appoint an arbitrator does not arise.
13. A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Wellington Associates Ltd. v. Kirit Mehta [AIR 2000 SC 1379] though the arbitration clause in that case was different.
14. Now, I may refer to the pre-requisites of a valid and binding arbitration agreement leading to an appropriate reference under the Act. Section 2(1)(b) defines `arbitration agreement' to be an agreement referred to in Section 7. Section 7 of the Act states that an `arbitration agreement' is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. The arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement and shall be an agreement in writing. An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in any of the clauses i.e. clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act. Once these ingredients are satisfied, there would be a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and the aggrieved party would be in a capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.
15. In the case of K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 573], this Court, while differentiating an `arbitration agreement' from a `reference to an expert' for decision, contained in an MOU recording a family settlement, enumerated the essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement:
1. The arbitration agreement must contemplate that the decision of the tribunal will be binding on the parties to the agreement,
2. that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide the rights of parties must be derived either from the consent of the parties or from an order of the Court or from a statute, the terms of which make it clear that the process is to be an arbitration,
3. the agreement must contemplate that substantive rights of parties will be determined by the agreed tribunal,
4. that the tribunal will determine the rights of the parties in an impartial and judicial manner with the tribunal owing an equal obligation of fairness towards both sides,
5. that the agreement of the parties to refer their disputes to the decision of the tribunal must be intended to be enforceable in law and lastly,
6. the agreement must contemplate that the tribunal will make a decision upon a dispute which is already formulated at the time when a reference is made to the tribunal.
16. Also in the case of Smita Conductors Ltd. v. Euro Alloys Ltd. [(2001) 7 SCC 728], where no contract, letter or telegram confirming the contract containing the arbitration clause as such was there, but certain correspondences which indicated a reference to the contract containing arbitration clause for opening the letter of credit addressed to the bank, were there. There was also no correspondence between the parties disagreeing either with the terms of the contract or the arbitration clause. The two contracts also stood affirmed by reason of their conduct as indicated in the letters exchanged between the parties. This Court construed it to be an arbitration agreement in writing between the parties and referred to Article II Para 2 of the New York Convention, which is pari materia to Section 7 of the Act and observed as under: "what needs to be understood in this context is that the agreement to submit to arbitration must be in writing. What is an agreement in writing is explained by Para 2 of Article II. If we break down Para 2 into elementary parts, it consists of four aspects. It includes an arbitral Clause (1) in a contract containing an arbitration clause signed by the parties, (2) an arbitration agreement signed by the parties, (3) an arbitral clause in a contract contained in exchange of letters or telegrams, and (4) an arbitral agreement contained in exchange of letters or telegrams. If an arbitration clause falls in any one of these four categories, it must be treated as an agreement in writing.
17. This Court, in the case of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders[(2003) 7 SCC 418] has also taken the view that the parties must agree in writing to be bound by the decision of such Tribunal and they must be ad idem.
18. The next question that falls for consideration is what should be the approach of the Court while construing a contract between the parties containing an arbitration agreement. In the case of Rickmers Verwaltung GMBH v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 1], this Court took the view that `it is the duty of the court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any meeting of minds between the parties, which could create a binding contract between them. Unless from the correspondence, it can unequivocally and clearly emerge that the parties were ad idem to the terms, it cannot be said that an agreement had come into existence between them through correspondence.' Still in the case of Unissi (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research [(2009) 1 SCC 107], where the appellant had given his tender offer which was accepted by the respondent and the tender contained an arbitration clause, this Court, considering the facts of the case, the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and the principles laid down by it, took the view that though no formal agreement was executed but in view of the tender documents containing the arbitration clause, the reference to arbitration was proper. In the case of Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Kola Shipping Ltd. [(2009) 2 SCC 134], this Court held that from the provisions made under Section 7 of the Act, the existence of an arbitration agreement can be inferred from a document signed by the parties or exchange of e-mails, letters, telex, telegram or other means of telecommunication, which provide a record of the agreement.
19. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of VISA International Ltd. v. Continental Resources (USA) Ltd. [(2009) 2 SCC 55], this Court was concerned with an arbitration clause contained in the memorandum of understanding that read as under:
Any dispute arising out of this agreement and which cannot be settled amicably shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
20. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent, instead of challenging the existence of a valid arbitration clause, took the stand that the arbitration would not be cost effective and will be pre-mature. In view of the facts, this Court held that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and the petitioner was entitled to a reference under Section 11 of the Act and observed:
No party can be allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and the material on record, including surrounding circumstances.
21. It is in light of these provisions, one has to construe whether the clause in the present case, reproduced above, in Para 1, constitutes a valid and binding agreement. It is clear from a reading of the said clause that the parties were ad idem to amicably settle their disputes or settle the disputes through an arbitrator in India/UAE. There was apparently some ambiguity caused by the language of the arbitration clause. If the clause was read by itself without reference to the correspondence between the parties and the attendant circumstances, may be the case would clearly fall within the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Chander (supra). But once the correspondence between the parties and attendant circumstances are read conjointly with the petition of the petitioner and with particular reference to the purchase contract, it becomes evident that the parties had an agreement in writing and were ad idem in their intention to refer these matters to an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Vide their letter dated 30th March, 2008, the respondent had raised certain claims upon the petitioner and had also repelled the threat extended by the petitioner to take steps before the ECGC. This notice had been responded to by the petitioner vide letter dated 4th April, 2008 wherein it had raised its claims demanding payment of money within seven days and also stated that any default thereto would constrain it to take legal action. Finally, vide letter dated 30th May, 2008, the petitioner had invoked arbitration clause between the parties and, in fact, had even nominated an arbitrator calling upon the respondent to concur to the said appointment. Replying to this letter vide letter dated 27th June, 2008, the respondent had neither denied the existence nor the binding nature of the arbitration clause. On the contrary, it had requested the petitioner not to take any legal action for appointment of an arbitrator, as they wanted to suggest some other name as an arbitrator, that too, subject to consent of the petitioner. This letter conclusively proves that the respondent had admitted the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and consented to the idea of appointing a common/sole arbitrator to determine the disputes between the parties. However, thereafter there had been complete silence from its side, necessitating the filing of present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act by the petitioner. Thus, any ambiguity in the arbitration clause contained in the purchase contract stood extinct by the correspondence between the parties and the consensus ad idem in relation to the existence of an arbitration agreement and settlement of disputes through arbitration became crystal clear. The parties obviously had committed to settle their disputes by arbitration, which they could not settle, as claims and counter claims had been raised in the correspondence exchanged between them. In view of the above, even the pre- condition for invocation of an arbitration agreement stands satisfied. The arbitration agreement does not provide for any specific mode/methodology to be adopted while appointing an arbitrator. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that keeping in view the extent of claims, it will be highly expensive if an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of two arbitrators and a presiding arbitrator is constituted. He further contented that the parties in their correspondence have already agreed to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. He prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator as both the parties in their respective letters had agreed to appoint an arbitrator with common concurrence. Thus, in the afore- mentioned circumstances, this petition is allowed and Mr. Justice D.R. Dhanuka (Retired) Judge, Bombay High Court, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. The parties are at liberty to file claims/counter claims before the appointed Arbitrator, which shall be decided in accordance with law.
Objections to Award & Limitation : The Law
Justice RM Lodha
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Assam Urban Water Supply & Sew. Board Vs. Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd. was faced with the question whether the appellants were entitled to extension of time under Section 4 of the Limitation Act Act. While answering the question in negative, the Supreme Court has recapitulated the law relating to limitation for filing objections to an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We have dealt with a similar post earlier where Justice Aftab Alam has dealt with the law relating to limitation in filing objections under Section 34 of the Act.
7. Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act provides that an application for setting aside an award may be made within three months of the receipt of the arbitral award. The proviso that follows sub- section (3) of Section 34 provides that on sufficient cause being shown, the court may entertain the application for setting aside the award after the period of three months and within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter.
8. In Popular Construction Co. (supra), this Court has held that an application for setting aside an award filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 34(3) would not be an application "in accordance with sub-section (3) as required under Section 34(1) of the 1996 Act" and Section 5 of the 1963 Act has no application to such application. In para 12 of the report, it was held in Popular Construction Co. (supra) thus:-
"12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are "but not thereafter" used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section 5 of the Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase "but not thereafter" wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result".
9. Recently, in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 518, a two Judge Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) emphasised the mandatory nature of the limit to the extension of the period provided in proviso to Section 34(3) and held that an application for setting aside arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act has to be made within the time prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34, i.e., within three months and a further period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown and not thereafter.
10. Section 43(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the 1963 Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court. The 1963 Act is thus applicable to the matters of arbitration covered by the 1996 Act save and except to the extent its applicability has been excluded by virtue of the express provision contained in Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.
11. The facts in the present case are peculiar. The arbitral awards were received by the appellants on August 26, 2003. No application for setting aside the arbitral awards was made by the appellants before elapse of three months from the receipt thereof. As a matter of fact, three months from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award by the appellants expired on November 26, 2003. The District Court had Christmas vacation for the period from December 25, 2003 to January 1, 2004. On reopening of the court, i.e., on January 2, 2004, admittedly, the appellants made applications for setting aside those awards under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. If the period during which the District Court, Kamrup, Guwahati, remained closed during Christmas vacation, 2003 is extended and the appellants get benefit of that period over and above the cap of thirty days as provided in Section 34(3), then the view of the High Court and the District Judge cannot be sustained. But this would depend on the applicability of Section 4 of the 1963 Act. The question, therefore, that falls for our determination is - whether the appellants are entitled to extension of time under Section 4 of the 1963 Act in the above facts.
12. Section 4 of the 1963 Act reads as under :-
"4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.-Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. Explanation.-A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day."
13. The above Section enables a party to institute a suit, prefer an appeal or make an application on the day court reopens where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on the day when the court is closed. The crucial words in Section 4 of the 1963 Act are 'prescribed period'. What is the meaning of these words? Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act defines 'period of limitation' which means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and 'prescribed period' means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act when read in the context of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, it becomes amply clear that the prescribed period for making an application for setting aside arbitral award is three months. The period of 30 days mentioned in proviso that follows sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is not the 'period of limitation' and, therefore, not 'prescribed period' for the purposes of making the application for setting aside the arbitral award. The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause being shown under the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act being not the 'period of limitation' or, in other words, 'prescribed period', in our opinion, Section 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted to the facts of the present case.
14. Seen thus, the applications made by the appellants on January 2, 2004, for setting aside the arbitral award dated August 26, 2003 were liable to be dismissed and have rightly been dismissed by the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, as time barred.
Related Post :
Challenge to Arbitration Award & Limitation : The Law
Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Failure to appoint within 30 days - Effect
Justice S. Muralidhar
The Delhi High Court in Intuitive Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. DLF Ltd. has recapitulated the legal position in cases where a party fails to appoint an arbitrator despite a request to do so by the other party, within the statutory period as prescribed in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. While following the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Limited v. Tata Finance Limited, the Delhi High Court held as under;
11. The question whether the Respondent has forfeited its right to appoint an Arbitrator can be answered on an analysis of the facts of the present case. The documents placed on record show that the Petitioner's legal notice dated 14th September 2011 invoking the arbitration clause was received by the Respondent on 16th September 2011. However, the said notice was not in conformity with the arbitration clause since the Petitioner proposed that the appointment of an Arbitrator be done by the Respondent 'in consultation' with the Petitioner. This was contrary to the express wording of Clause 32 (b) of the Agreement. Even assuming that the notice invoking the arbitration clause was received by the Respondent on 16th September 2011, the date of appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent is significant. Although the letter of counsel for the Respondent informing the Petitioner of the Arbitrator is dated 17th October 2011, and dispatched on 20th October 2011, the actual decision to appoint the Arbitrator must have been taken some time prior to the said letter dated 17th October 2011.
12. In Datar Switchgears Limited v. Tata Finance Limited in para 19 it was observed as under:
"19. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are conceded such as the one before us no time limit has been prescribed under the Act, whereas a period of 30 days has been prescribed Under Section 11(4) and Section11(5) of the Act. In our view, therefore, so far as Section 11(6) is concerned, if one party demands the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right to appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand, but before the first party has moved the Court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. In other words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Only then the right of the opposite party ceases. We do not, therefore, agree with the observation in the above judgments that if the appointment is not made within 30 days of demand, the right to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) is forfeited." (emphasis supplied)
13. The above decision was reiterated in Punj Lloyd Limited v. Petronet MHB Limited and in a recent decision dated 9th January 2012 of the Supreme Court in Arbitration Petition No. 11 of 2011 [Denel (Proprietary Limited) v. Government of India, Ministry of Defence]. Consequently, for the purposes of Section 11, it requires to be seen is whether the appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent has taken place prior to the filing of the present petition on 19th October 2011.
14. It was contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the notice dated 17th October 2011 was dispatched only on 20th October 2011 the appointment of the Arbitrator took place after the filing of the present petition on 19th October 2011. The above submission fails to appreciate that the actual date of appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent had to be prior to the notice dated 17th October 2011. The date of dispatch of the letter intimating the appointment cannot `postpone' the date of appointment. It is not possible, on the basis of the documents placed on record, to hold that the appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent took place after the filing of the present petition. In accordance with the law explained by the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Limited v. Tata Finance Limited, it is held that the Respondent did not forfeit its right to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 32 (b) of the Agreement.
Exemplary Costs on Frivolous Litigation : Supreme Court
Justice Raveendran
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust has dealt with the relevant provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for award of compensatory and punitive costs in favour of the successful party. The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment has suggested a hike in the quantum of costs on persons indulging in frivolous and vexatious litigations, which are clogging up the justice delivery system in the country. The relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow;
Relevant provisions of the Code
6. Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short 'the Code') relates to costs and is extracted below:
"35. Costs. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of law for the time being in force, the costs of and incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the Court, and the Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid. The fact that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of such powers. (2) Where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing."
6.1. Section 35A relates to compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims and is extracted below:
"35A. Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defenses (1) If any suit or other proceedings including an execution proceedings but excluding an appeal or a revision any party objects to the claim of defence on the ground that the claim or defence or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court if it so thinks fit, may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment to the object or by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of cost by way of compensation. (2) No Court shall make any such order for the payment of an amount exceeding three thousand rupees or exceeding the limits of it pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less: Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of any Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) or under a corresponding law in force in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend and not being a Court constituted under such Act or law, are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one hundred rupees : Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the amount or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs under this Section. (3) No person against whom an order has been made under this section shall, by reason thereof, be exempted from any criminal liability in respect of any claim or defence made by him. (4) The amount of any compensation awarded under this section in respect of a false or vexatious claim or defence shall be taken into account in any subsequent suit for damages or compensation in respect of such claim or defence."
6.2. Section 35B relates to costs for causing delay and is extracted below : "35B. Costs for causing delay. –
(1) If, on any date fixed for the hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the suit—
(a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this Code to take on that date, or
(b) obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order requiring such party to pay to the other party such costs as would, in the opinion of the Court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the Court on that date, and payment of such costs, on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of--
(a) the suit by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was ordered to pay such costs,
(b) the defence by the defendant, where the defendant was ordered to pay such costs. Explanation.--Where separate defences have been raised by the defendants or groups of defendants, payment of such costs shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the defence by such defendants or groups of defendants as have been ordered by the Court to pay such costs.
(2) The costs, ordered to be paid under sub-section (1), shall not, if paid, be included in the costs awarded in the decree passed in the suit; but, if such costs are not paid, a separate order shall be drawn up indicating the amount of such costs and the names and addresses of the persons by whom such costs are payable and the order so drawn up shall be executable against such persons."
6.3. Order XXA of the Code provides for costs being awarded in regard to the following six items enumerated in Rule 1:
"1. Provisions relating to certain items.- Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this Code relating to cots, the Court may award costs in respect of, -
(a) expenditure incurred for the giving of any notice required to be given by law before the institution of the suit;
(b) expenditure incurred on any notice which, though not required to be given by law, has been given by any party to the suit to any other party before the institution of the suit;
(c) expenditure incurred on the typing, writing or printing of pleadings filed by any party;
(d) charges paid by a party for inspection of the records of the court for the purposes of the suit;
(e) expenditure incurred by a party for producing witnesses, even though not summoned through courts; and
(f) in the case of appeals, charges incurred by a party for obtaining any copies of judgments and decrees which are required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal."
Rule 2 of Order XXA provides that award of costs under this Rule shall be in accordance with such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf.
Decisions dealing with costs
7. Sections 35 and 35A have been considered recently by this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India [2005 (6) SCC 344], Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs. Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr. [2009 (2) SCC 656] and Vinod Seth Vs. Devender Bajaj & Anr. [2010 (8) SCC 1]. Before referring to them, we may refer to the principle underlying award of costs stated in Manindra Chandra Nandi vs. Aswini Kumar Acharjya [ILR (1921) 48 Ca. 427] :
"....We must remember that whatever the origin of costs might have been, they are now awarded, not as a punishment of the defeated party but as a recompense to the successful party for the expenses to which he had been subjected, or, as Lord Coke puts it, for whatever appears to the Court to be the legal expenses incurred by the party in prosecuting his suit or his defence. * * * The theory on which costs are now awarded to a plaintiff is that default of the defendant made it necessary to sue him, and to a defendant is that the plaintiff sued him without cause; costs are thus in the nature of incidental damages allowed to indemnify a party against the expense of successfully vindicating his rights in court and consequently the party to blame pays costs to the party without fault. These principles apply, not merely in the award of costs, but also in the award of extra allowance or special costs. Courts are authorized to allow such special allowances, not to inflict a penalty on the un-successful party, but to indemnify the successful litigant for actual expenses necessarily or reasonably incurred in what are designated as important cases or difficult and extraordinary cases."
7.1. In Salem Advocates Bar Association, this Court held:
"Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded on the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to taking up of frivolous defences. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the Court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons thereof. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other cost in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow."
7.2. In Ashok Kumar Mittal, this Court pointed out that present system of levying meagre costs in civil matters (or no costs in some matters), is wholly unsatisfactory and does not act as a deterrent to vexatious or luxury litigation borne out of ego or greed, or resorted to as a `buying-time' tactic and that a more realistic approach relating to costs may be the need of the hour. This Court had also observed that the question whether we should adopt suitably, the western models of awarding actual and more realistic costs is a matter that requires to be debated and that should engage the attention of Law Commission of India. This Court also observed:
"One view has been that the provisions of Sections 35 and 35A CPC do not in any way affect the wide discretion vested in by High Court in exercise of its inherent power to award costs in the interests of justice in appropriate civil cases. The more sound view however is that though award of costs is within the discretion of the court, it is subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force; and where the issue is governed and regulated by Sections 35 and 35A of the Code, there is no question of exercising inherent power contrary to the specific provisions of the Code. Further, the provisions of Section 35A seems to suggest that even where a suit or litigation is vexatious, the outer limit of exemplary costs that can be awarded in addition to regular costs, shall not exceed Rs. 3000/-. It is also to be noted that huge costs of the order of Rs. Fifty thousand or Rs. One lakh, are normally awarded only in writ proceedings and public interest litigations, and not in civil litigation to which Sections 35 and 35A are applicable. The principles and practices relating to levy of costs in administrative law matters cannot be imported mechanically in relation to civil litigation governed by the Code."
7.3. In Vinod Seth, this Court observed as under:
"48. The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals:
(a) It should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence.
(b) Costs should ensure that the provisions of the Code, Evidence Act and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that parties do not adopt delaying tactics or mislead the court.
(c) Costs should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. This necessitates the award of actual costs of litigation as contrasted from nominal or fixed or unrealistic costs.
(d) The provision for costs should be an incentive for each litigant to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlement before the trial commences in most of the cases. In many other jurisdictions, in view of the existence of appropriate and adequate provisions for costs, the litigants are persuaded to settle nearly 90% of the civil suits before they come up to trial.
(e) The provisions relating to costs should not however obstruct access to courts and justice. Under no circumstances the costs should be a deterrent, to a citizen with a genuine or bonafide claim, or to any person belonging to the weaker sections whose rights have been affected, from approaching the courts. At present these goals are sought to be achieved mainly by sections 35,35A and 35B read with the relevant civil rules of practice relating to taxing of costs.
49. Section 35 of the Code vests the discretion to award costs in the courts. It provides that normally the costs should follow the event and court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property, and to what extent such costs are to be paid. Most of the costs taxing rules, including the rules in force in Delhi provide each party should file a bill of cost immediately after the judgment is delivered setting out:
(a) the court fee paid; (b) process fee spent; (c) expenses of witnesses; (d) advocate's fee; and
(e) such other amount as may be allowable under the rules or as may be directed by the court as costs.
We are informed that in Delhi, the advocate's fee in regard to suits the value of which exceeds Rs.5 lakhs is : Rs.14,500/- plus 1% of the amount in excess of Rs.5 lakhs subject to a ceiling of Rs.50,000/-. The prevalent view among litigants and members of the bar is that the costs provided for in the Code and awarded by courts neither compensate nor indemnify the litigant fully in regard to the expenses incurred by him.
50. The English Civil Procedure Rules provide that a court in deciding what order, if any, to make in exercising its discretion about costs should have regard to the following circumstances:
(a) the conduct of all the parties; (b) whether a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful; and (c) any payment made into court or admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the courts attention. 'Conduct of the parties' that should be taken note by the court includes: (a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and in particular the extent to which the parties followed the relevant pre-action protocol; (b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue; (c) the manner in which a party has pursued or defended his case or a particular allegation or issue; and (d) whether a claimant who has succeeded in his claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated his claim. Similar provisions, with appropriate modifications may enable proper and more realistic costs being awarded.
51. As Section 35 of the Code does not impose any ceiling the desired object can be achieved by the following: (i) courts levying costs, following the result, in all cases (non-levy of costs should be supported by reasons); and (ii) appropriate amendment to Civil Rules of Practice relating to taxation of costs, to make it more realistic in commercial litigation.
52. The provision relating to compensatory costs (Section 35A of the Code) in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences has become virtually infructuous and ineffective, on account of inflation. Under the said section, award of compensatory costs in false and vexatious litigation, is subject to a ceiling of Rs.3,000/-. This requires a realistic revision keeping in view, the observations in Salem Advocates Bar Association (supra). Section 35B providing for costs for causing delay is seldom invoked. It should be regularly employed, to reduce delay.
53. The lack of appropriate provisions relating to costs has resulted in a steady increase in malicious, vexatious, false, frivolous and speculative suits, apart from rendering Section 89 of the Code ineffective. Any attempt to reduce the pendency or encourage alternative dispute resolution processes or to streamline the civil justice system will fail in the absence of appropriate provisions relating to costs. There is therefore an urgent need for the legislature and the Law Commission of India to re-visit the provisions relating to costs and compensatory costs contained in Section 35 and 35A of the Code."
8. Though, Section 35 does not impose a ceiling on the costs that could be levied and gives discretion to the Court in the matter, it should be noted that Section 35 starts with the words "subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of law for the time being in force". Therefore, if there are any conditions or limitations prescribed in the Code or in any rules, the Court, obviously, cannot ignore them in awarding costs.
9. Chapter 11 Part C of the Delhi High Court Rules (`Rules' for short) deals with award of costs in civil suits. Chapter XXIII of the said Rules deals with taxation of costs. Rule 1 relates to appointment of Taxing Officer. Rule 6 provides that advocate's fee should be taxed on the basis of a certificate filed under Rule 2 Chapter 5 but not exceeding the scale prescribed in the schedule to Chapter XXIII. Therefore, the Court could not have awarded costs exceeding the scale that was prescribed in the schedule to the Rules. Doing so would be contrary to the Rules. If it was contrary to the Rules, it was also contrary to Section 35 also which makes it subject to the conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and the provisions of law for the time being in force. Therefore, we are of the view that merely by seeking a consent of the parties to award litigation expenses as costs, the High Court could not have adopted the procedure of awarding what it assumed to be the `actual costs' nor could it proceed to award a sum of Rs.45,28,000/- as costs in an appeal relating to an interim order in a civil suit. While we would like to encourage award of realistic costs, that should be in accordance with law. If the law does not permit award of actual costs, obviously courts cannot award actual costs. When this Court observed that it is in favour of award of actual realistic costs, it means that the relevant Rules should be amended to provide for actual realistic costs. As the law presently stands, there is no provision for award of `actual costs' and the award of costs will have to be within the limitation prescribed by section 35.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in awarding actual costs, the High Court was merely following the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this court in Salem Advocates Bar Association. He drew our attention to para 37 of the said decision (which is extracted in the judgment of the High Court), in particular, the observation that "costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, and any other incidental costs besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other costs in relation to the litigation." The High Court has also assumed that the above observations of this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association enabled it to award "actual" costs. The High Court has opened its order with the following words: "The importance of this decision lies not in any substantial question of law having been decided - indeed, no question of law was urged before us, only issues touching upon facts. The importance lies in the nature of the dispute between the parties, which is a purely commercial dispute in which litigation expenses have touched the sky. In our opinion, the only way in which a successful litigant can be compensated financially is by awarding actual costs incurred by him in the litigation. The Supreme Court has recommended this course of action and we think the time has come to give more than serious weight and respect to the views of the Supreme Court. We have endeavoured to do just that in this appeal by awarding to the respondents the actual litigation expenses incurred by them, which is a staggering Rs.45,00,000/."
We are afraid that the respondents and the High Court have misread the observations of this Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association. All that this Court stated was that the actual reasonable cost has to be provided for in the rules by appropriate amendment. In fact, the very next sentence in para 37 of the decision of this Court is that the High Courts should examine these aspects and wherever necessary, make requisite rules, regulations or practice directions. What has been observed by this court about actual realistic costs is an observation requiring the High Courts to amend their rules and regulations to provide for actual realistic costs, where they are not so provided. We have noticed that section 35 does not impose a restriction on actual realistic costs. Such restriction is generally imposed by the rules made by the High Court. The observation in Salem Advocates Bar Association is a direction to amend the rules so as to provide for actual realistic costs and not to ignore the existing rules. The decision in Salem Advocates Bar Association is therefore of no assistance to justify the award of such costs. The Rules permit costs to the awarded only as per the schedule. Therefore, as the Rules presently stand. Whatever may be the `actual' expenditure incurred by a party, what could be awarded as costs is what is provided in the Rules.
11. There is one more aspect which requires serious consideration. What is the meaning of the words `actual realistic costs' assuming that costs could be awarded on such basis? Whether it can be said that ` 45,28,000/- said to have been incurred (made up of ` 29,73,000/- paid to Mr. S, Senior Advocate, ` 14,41,000/- paid to Mr. G, Senior Advocate, ` 85,500/- paid to Mr. M, Advocate, ` 16,750/- paid to Mr. V, Advocate and ` 11,750/- incurred as miscellaneous expenses) was the `actual realistic cost' of an appeal against an interim order in a suit for injunction? The actual realistic cost should have a correlation to costs which are realistic and practical. It cannot obviously refer to fanciful and whimsical expenditure by parties who have the luxury of engaging a battery of high-charging lawyers. If the logic adopted by the High Court is to be accepted, then the losing party should pay the costs, not with reference to the subject matter of the suit, but with reference to the fee paying capacity of the other side. Let us take the example of a suit for recovery of ` One lakh. If a rich plaintiff wants to put forth his case most effectively, engages a counsel who charges ` One lakh per hearing and the matter involves 30 hearings, should the defendant be made to pay costs of 30 lakhs, in a suit for recovery of ` One lakh merely because it is a commercial dispute? In a matter relating to temporary injunction, merely because the court adjourns the matter several times and one side engages a counsel by paying more than a lakh per hearing, should the other side be made to bear such costs? The costs memo filed by the respondents show that ` 45,28,000/- was paid to four counsel? If a rich litigant engages four counsel instead of one, should the defendant pay the fee of four counsel? If a party engages five senior Advocates and five ordinary counsel because he is capable, should the losing party pay the fees of all these counsel? The appeal came up on several occasions, but the final hearing of the appeal was only on a few days and other days were mere appearances. Should the losing party pay for such appearances? If respondents had engaged two senior counsel who charged ` Two lakhs per appearance, should the other side be made liable to pay ` 1.5 crore as costs?
Even if actual costs have to be awarded, it should be realistic which means what a "normal" advocate in a "normal" case of such nature would charge normally in such a case. Mechanically ordering the losing party to pay costs of ` 45,28,000/- in an appeal against grant of a temporary injunction in a pending suit for permanent injunction was unwarranted and contrary to law. It cannot be sustained.
12. Though this takes care of the actual dispute between the parties, it is also necessary to refer to the larger question of costs in civil suits. For this purpose, during the hearing, this Court requested Dr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel to assist as an Amicus Curiae in the matter. In pursuance of it, Dr. Arun Mohan collected and made available considerable material with reference to practices relating to levy of costs in several other jurisdictions. We find that the schemes/processes for assessment of costs in some of the western countries may not be appropriate with reference to Indian conditions. The process of taxation of costs has developed into a detailed and complex procedure in developed countries and instances are not wanting where the costs awarded has been more than the amount involved in the litigation itself. Having regard to Indian conditions, it is not possible or practical to spend the amount of time that is required for determination of `actual costs' as done in those countries, when we do not have time even to dispose of cases on merits. If the Courts have to set apart the time required for the elaborate procedure of assessment of costs, it may even lead to an increase in the pendency of cases. Therefore, we requested Dr. Arun Mohan to suggest ways and means of simplifying costs procedures to suit Indian conditions so that appropriate suggestions could be made to the Government. He has put forth several suggestions. Law Commission of India has also intervened and made several valuable suggestions. Notices were issued to the High Courts to ascertain the Rules and procedures in force in regard to costs. For convenience, we will refer to Delhi High Court Rules as the present matter arises from Delhi.
Strict enforcement of Section 35(2) of the Code
13. The discretion vested in the courts in the matter of award of costs is subject to two conditions, as is evident from section 35 of the Code:
(i) The discretion of the court is subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and to the provisions of law for he time being in force (vide sub-section (1)]
(ii) Where the court does not direct that costs shall follow the event, it shall state the reasons in writing [vide sub-section (2)].
The mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Code that "where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing" is seldom followed in practice by courts. Many courts either do not make any order as to costs or direct the parties to bear their respective costs without assigning or recording the reasons for giving such exemption from costs. Unless the Courts develop the practice of awarding costs in accordance with Section 35 (that is, costs following the event) and also give reasons where costs are not awarded, the object of the provision for costs would be defeated. Prosecution and defence of cases is a time consuming and costly process. A plaintiff/petition/ appellant who is driven to the court, by the illegal acts of the defendant/respondent, or denial of a right to which he is entitled, if he succeeds, to be reimbursed of his expenses in accordance with law. Similarly a defendant/respondent who is dragged to court unnecessarily or vexatiously, if he succeeds, should be reimbursed of his expenses in accordance with law. Further, it is also well recognised that levy of costs and compensatory costs is one of the effective ways of curbing false or vexatious litigations.
Section 35A of the Code - Exemplary costs.
14. Section 35A refers to compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defenses. The maximum amount that could be levied as compensatory costs for false and vexatious claims used to be ` 1,000/-. In the year 1977, this was amended and increased to ` 3,000/-. At present, the maximum that can be awarded as compensatory costs in regard to false and vexatious claims is ` 3,000/-. Unless the compensatory costs is brought to a realistic level, the present provision authorizing levy of an absurdly small sum by present day standards may, instead of discouraging such litigation, encourage false and vexatious claims. At present Courts have virtually given up awarding any compensatory costs as award of such a small sum of ` 3,000/- would not make much difference. We are of the view that the ceiling in regard to compensatory costs should be at least `1,00,000/-.
15. We may also note that the description of the costs awardable under Section 35A "as compensatory costs" gives an indication that is restitutive rather than punitive. The costs awarded for false or vexatious claims should be punitive and not merely compensatory. In fact, compensatory costs is something that is contemplated in Section 35B and Section 35 itself. Therefore, the Legislature may consider award of 'punitive costs' under section 35A.
Court fees
16. Though there is a general impression that the court fee regarding litigation is high, in fact, it is not so. Except in the case of few categories of suits (that is money suits, specific performance suits etc., and appeals therefrom), where court fee is ad volerem, in majority of the suits/petitions and appeals arising therefrom, the court fee is a fixed nominal fee. The fixed fees that are payable, prescribed decades ago have not undergone a change and in many cases, the fixed fee is not worth the cost of collection thereof.
There is therefore a need for a periodical revision of fixed court fees, that is payable in regard to suits/petitions/appeals filed in civil courts, High Court, Tribunals and Supreme Court. For example, in Supreme Court, the maximum court fee payable is only ` 250/-, whether it is a suit or special leave petition or appeal.
17. A time has come when at least in certain type of litigations, like commercial litigations, the costs should be commensurate with the time spent by the courts. Arbitration matters, company matters, tax matters, for example, may involve huge amounts. There is no reason why a nominal fixed fee should be collected in regard to such cases. While we are not advocating an ad valorem fee with reference to value in such matters, at least the fixed fee should be sufficiently high to have some kind of quid- pro-quo to the cost involved. Be that as it may.
Award of Realistic Costs
18. In Salem Advocates Bar Association, this Court suggested to the High Courts that they should examine the Model Case Flow Management Rules and consider making rules in terms of it, with or without modification so that a step forward is taken to provide to the litigating public a fair, speedy and inexpensive justice. The relevant rules therein relating to costs are extracted below:
"Re: Trial Courts So far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory in as much as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Where a party succeeds ultimately on one issue or point but loses on num- ber of other issues or points which were unnecessarily raised, costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to rules in force. If any of the parties has unreasonably protracted the proceedings, the Judge should consider exercising discretion to impose exemplary costs after tak- ing into account the expense incurred for the purpose of attendance on the adjourned dates. Re: Appellate Courts Awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory in as much as it is the liberal attitude if the Courts in not awarding costs that has led to frivolous points being raised in appeals or frivolous appeals being filed in the courts. Costs should invariably follow the event and reasons must be assigned by the appellate Court for not awarding costs. If any of the parties have unreasonably protracted the proceedings, the Judge shall have the discretion to impose exemplary costs after taking into account the costs that may have been imposed at the time of adjournments."
19. The costs in regard to a litigation include (a) the court fee and process fee; (b) the advocate's fee; (c) expenses of witnesses; and (d) other expenses allowable under the Rules. We have already referred to the need to revise and streamline the court fee. Equally urgent is the need to revise the advocate's fee provided in the Schedule to the Rules, most of which are outdated and have no correlation with the prevailing rates of fees. In regard to money suits, specific performance suits and other suits where ad valorem court fee is payable, the Advocate's fee is also usually ad valorem. We are more concerned with the other matters, which constitute the majority of the litigation, where fixed Advocates' fees are prescribed. In Delhi in regard to any proceedings (other than suits where the ad valorem court fee is payable), the maximum fee that could be awarded is stated to be ` 2000 and for appeals of the scale if that is payable to original suits.
20. The Supreme Court Rules (Second Schedule) prescribes a fee of `2400/- for leading counsel and `1200/- for Associate Advocate in regard to defended appeals and suits or writ petitions. For special leave petitions, it is `800/- for leading counsel and `400/- for Advocate-on-Record. It is of some interest to note that the fee paid to amicus curiae in criminal appeals in Supreme Court and to the Legal Aid counsel appointed by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is much higher than the above scale of fees. There is need to provide for awarding realistic advocates' fee by amending the relevant rules periodically. This Court, of course, in several cases has directed payment of realistic costs. But this Court could do so, either because of the discretion vested under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 or having regard to Article 142 of the Constitution under which this Court has the power to make such orders as are necessary to do complete justice between the parties.
21. A serious fallout of not levying actual realistic costs should be noted. A litigant, who starts the litigation, after sometime, being unable to bear the delay and mounting costs, gives up and surrenders to the other side or agrees to settlement which is something akin to creditor who is not able to recover the debt, writing off the debt. This happens when the costs keep mounting and he realizes that even if he succeeds he will not get the actual costs. If this happens frequently, the citizens will lose confidence in the civil justice system. When a civil litigant is denied effective relief in Courts, he tries to take his grievances to `extra judicial' enforcers (that is goons, musclemen, underworld) for enforcing his claims/right thereby criminalising the civil society. This has serious repercussions on the institution of democracy.
22. We therefore, suggest that the Rules be amended to provide for `actual realistic costs'. The object is to streamline the award of costs and simplify the process of assessment, while making the cost `actual and realistic'. While ascertainment of actuals in necessary in regard to expenditure incurred (as for example travel expenses of witnesses, cost of obtaining certified copies etc.) in so far as advocates' fee is concerned, the emphasis should be on `realistic' rather than `actual'. The courts are not concerned with the number of lawyers engaged or the high rate of day fee paid to them. For the present, the Advocate fee should be a realistic normal single fee.
Costs in Arbitration matters
23. We have referred to the effect of absence of provisions for award of actual costs, on civil litigation. At the other end of the spectrum is an area where award of actual but unrealistic costs and delay in disposal is affecting the credibility of an alternative dispute resolution process. We are referring to arbitration proceedings where usually huge costs are awarded (with reference to actual unregulated fees of Arbitrators and Advocates).
24. Clause (a) of section 31(8) of Arbitration and Conciliation At, 1996 (`Act' for short) deals with costs. It provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the costs of an arbitration shall be fixed by the arbitral tribunal. The explanation to sub-section (8) of section 31 makes it clear that `costs' means reasonable costs relating to (i) the fees and expenses of the arbitrators and witnesses, (ii) legal fees and expenses, (iii) any administration fees of the institution supervising the arbitration, and (iv) any other expenses incurred in connection with the arbitral proceedings and the arbitral award. Clause (b) of section 31(8) of the Act provides that unless otherwise agreed by parties, the arbitral tribunal shall specify (i) the party entitled to costs, (ii) the party who shall pay the costs, (iii) the amount of costs or method of determining the amount, and (iv) the manner in which the costs shall be paid. This shows that what is awardable is not `actual' expenditure but `reasonable' costs.
25. Arbitrators can be appointed by the parties directly without the intervention of the court, or by an Institution specified in the arbitration agreement. Where there is no consensus in regard to appointment of arbitrator/s, or if the specified institution fails to perform its functions, the party who seeks arbitration can file an application under section 11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrators. Section 11 speaks of Chief Justice or his Designate `appointing' an arbitrator. The word `appoint' means not only nominating or designating the person who will act as an arbitrator, but is wide enough to include the stipulating the terms on which he is appointed. For example when we refer to an employer issuing a letter of appointment, it not only refers to the actual act of appointment, but includes the stipulation of the terms subject to which such appointment is made. The word `appoint' in section 11 of the Act, therefore refers not only to the actual designation or nomination as an arbitrator, but includes specifying the terms and conditions, which the Chief Justice or Designate may lay down on the facts and circumstances of the case. Whenever the Chief Justice or his Designate appoint arbitrator/s, it will be open to him to stipulate the fees payable to the arbitrator/s, after hearing the parties and if necessary after ascertaining the fee structure from the prospective Arbitrator/s. This will avoid the embarrassment of parties having to negotiate with the Arbitrators, the fee payable to them, after their appointment.
26. This Court in Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate - 2009 (4) SCC 523, dealt with the complaints about the arbitration cost in India:
"20. Another aspect referred to by the appellant, however requires serious consideration. When the arbitration is by a Tribunal consisting of serving officers, the cost of arbitration is very low. On the other hand, the cost of arbitration can be high if the Arbitral Tribunal consists of retired Judge/s.
21. When a retired Judge is appointed as Arbitrator in place of serving officers, the government is forced to bear the high cost of Arbitration by way of private arbitrator's fee even though it had not consented for the appointment of such non-technical non-serving persons as Arbitrator/s. There is no doubt a prevalent opinion that the cost of arbitration becomes very high in many cases where retired Judge/s are Arbitrators. The large number of sittings and charging of very high fees per sitting, with several add-ons, without any ceiling, have many a time resulted in the cost of arbitration approaching or even exceeding the amount involved in the dispute or the amount of the award.
22. When an arbitrator is appointed by a court without indicating fees, either both parties or at least one party is at a disadvantage. Firstly, the parties feel constrained to agree to whatever fees is suggested by the Arbitrator, even if it is high or beyond their capacity. Secondly, if a high fee is claimed by the Arbitrator and one party agrees to pay such fee, the other party, who is unable to afford such fee or reluctant to pay such high fee, is put to an embarrassing position. He will not be in a position to express his reservation or objection to the high fee, owing to an apprehension that refusal by him to agree for the fee suggested by the arbitrator, may prejudice his case or create a bias in favour of the other party who readily agreed to pay the high fee.
23. It is necessary to find an urgent solution for this problem to save arbitration from the arbitration cost. Institutional arbitration has provided a solution as the Arbitrators' fees is not fixed by the Arbitrators themselves on case to case basis, but is governed by a uniform rate prescribed by the institution under whose aegis the Arbitration is held. Another solution is for the court to fix the fees at the time of appointing the arbitrator, with the consent of parties, if necessary in consultation with the arbitrator concerned. Third is for the retired Judges offering to serve as Arbitrators, to indicate their fee structure to the Registry of the respective High Court so that the parties will have the choice of selecting an Arbitrator whose fees are in their `range' having regard to the stakes involved.
24. What is found to be objectionable is parties being forced to go to an arbitrator appointed by the court and then being forced to agree for a fee fixed by such Arbitrator. It is unfortunate that delays, high cost, frequent and sometimes unwarranted judicial interruptions at different stages are seriously hampering the growth of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution process. Delay and high cost are two areas where the Arbitrators by self regulation can bring about marked improvement."
(emphasis supplied)
27. There is a general feeling among consumers of arbitration (parties settling disputes by arbitration) that ad-hoc arbitrations in India - either international or domestic, are time consuming and disproportionately expensive. Frequent complaints are made about two sessions in a day being treated as two hearings for purpose of charging fee; or about a sessions for two hours being treated as full sessions for purposes of fee; or about non- productive sittings being treated as fully chargeable hearings. It is pointed out that if there is an arbitral tribunal with three arbitrators and if the arbitrators are from different cities and the arbitrations are to be held and the Arbitrators are accommodated in five star hotels, the cost per hearing, (Arbitrator's fee, lawyer's fee, cost of travel, cost of accommodation etc.) may easily run into Rupees One Million to One and half Million per sitting. Where the stakes are very high, that kind of expenditure is not commented upon. But if the number of hearings become too many, the cost factor and efficiency/effectiveness factor is commented. That is why this Court in Singh Builders Syndicate observed that the arbitration will have to be saved from the arbitration cost.
28. Though what is stated above about arbitrations in India, may appear rather harsh, or as an universalisation of stray aberrations, we have ventured to refer to these aspects in the interest of ensuring that arbitration survives in India as an effective alternative forum for disputes resolution in India. Examples are not wanting where arbitrations are being shifted to neighbouring Singapore, Kuala Lumpur etc., on the ground that more professionalized or institutionalized arbitrations, which get concluded expeditiously at a lesser cost, are available there. The remedy for healthy development of arbitration in India is to disclose the fees structure before the appointment of Arbitrators so that any party who is unwilling to bear such expenses can express his unwillingness. Another remedy is Institutional Arbitration where the Arbitrator's fee is pre- fixed. The third is for each High Court to have a scale of Arbitrator's fee suitably calibrated with reference to the amount involved in the dispute. This will also avoid different designates prescribing different fee structures. By these methods, there may be a reasonable check on the fees and the cost of arbitration, thereby making arbitration, both national and international, attractive to the litigant public. Reasonableness and certainty about total costs are the key to the development of arbitration. Be that as it may.
Alternate Dispute Resolution under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure : Guidelines
Justice R.V. Raveendran
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. has discussed, in great detail, the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which casts a duty on the courts to encourage parties for settlement of their disputes by means of alternate dispute resolution. The Court while examining the various aspects of the said provision has laid down guidelines for courts to follow for the effective implementation of Section 89 of the Code. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;
5. On the contentions urged, two questions arise for consideration:
(i) What is the procedure to be followed by a court in implementing section 89 and Order 10 Rule 1A of the Code?
(ii) Whether consent of all parties to the suit is necessary for reference to arbitration under section 89 of the Code?
6. To find answers to the said questions, we have to analyse the object, purpose, scope and tenor of the said provisions. The said provisions are extracted below:
"89. Settlement of disputes outside the court. -
(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for - (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or (d) mediation. (2) where a dispute has been referred - (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."
Order 10 Rule 1A. Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.--After recording the admissions and denials, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in sub- section (1) of section 89. On the option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties. Order 10 Rule 1B. Appearance before the conciliatory forum or authority.--Where a suit is referred under rule 1A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit. Order 10 Rule 1C. Appearance before the Court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation.--Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the presiding officer of conciliation forum or authority is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, then, it shall refer the matter again to the Court and direct the parties to appear before the Court on the date fixed by it."
7. If section 89 is to be read and required to be implemented in its literal sense, it will be a Trial Judge's nightmare. It puts the cart before the horse and lays down an impractical, if not impossible, procedure in sub-section (1). It has mixed up the definitions in sub-section (2). In spite of these defects, the object behind section 89 is laudable and sound. Resort to alternative disputes resolution (for short `ADR') processes is necessary to give speedy and effective relief to the litigants and to reduce the pendency in and burden upon the courts. As ADR processes were not being resorted to with the desired frequency, Parliament thought it fit to introduce Section 89 and Rules 1-A to 1-C in Order X in the Code, to ensure that ADR process was resorted to before the commencement of trial in suits. In view of its laudable object, the validity of section 89, with all its imperfections, was upheld in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India reported in [2003 (1) SCC 49 - for short, Salem Bar - (I)] but referred to a Committee, as it was hoped that section 89 could be implemented by ironing the creases. In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India [2005 (6) SCC 344 - for short, Salem Bar-(II)], this Court applied the principle of purposive construction in an attempt to make it workable. What is wrong with section 89 of the Code?
8. The first anomaly is the mixing up of the definitions of `mediation' and `judicial settlement' under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of section 89 of the Code. Clause (c) says that for "judicial settlement", the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person who shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat. Clause (d) provides that where the reference is to "mediation", the court shall effect a compromise between the parties by following such procedure as may be prescribed. It makes no sense to call a compromise effected by a court, as "mediation", as is done in clause (d). Nor does it make any sense to describe a reference made by a court to a suitable institution or person for arriving at a settlement as "judicial settlement", as is done in clause (c). "Judicial settlement" is a term in vogue in USA referring to a settlement of a civil case with the help of a judge who is not assigned to adjudicate upon the dispute. "Mediation" is also a well known term and it refers to a method of non-binding dispute resolution with the assistance of a neutral third party who tries to help the disputing parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement. It is also synonym of the term `conciliation'. (See: Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, Pages 1377 and 996). When words are universally understood in a particular sense, and assigned a particular meaning in common parlance, the definitions of those words in section 89 with interchanged meanings has led to confusion, complications and difficulties in implementation. The mix-up of definitions of the terms "judicial settlement" and "mediation" in Section 89 is apparently due to a clerical or typographical error in drafting, resulting in the two words being interchanged in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 89(2). If the word "mediation" in clause (d) and the words "judicial settlement" in clause (c) are interchanged, we find that the said clauses make perfect sense.
9. The second anomaly is that sub-section (1) of section 89 imports the final stage of conciliation referred to in section 73(1) of the AC Act into the pre-ADR reference stage under section 89 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of section 89 requires the court to formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observation and then reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and then refer the same for any one of the ADR processes. If sub-section (1) of Section 89 is to be literally followed, every Trial Judge before framing issues, is required to ascertain whether there exists any elements of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, formulate the terms of settlement, give them to parties for observations and then reformulate the terms of a possible settlement before referring it to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, Lok Adalat or mediation. There is nothing that is left to be done by the alternative dispute resolution forum. If all these have to be done by the trial court before referring the parties to alternative dispute resolution processes, the court itself may as well proceed to record the settlement as nothing more is required to be done, as a Judge cannot do these unless he acts as a conciliator or mediator and holds detailed discussions and negotiations running into hours.
10. Section 73 of AC Act shows that formulation and reformulation of terms of settlement is a process carried out at the final stage of a conciliation process, when the settlement is being arrived at. What is required to be done at the final stage of conciliation by a conciliator is borrowed lock, stock and barrel into section 89 and the court is wrongly required to formulate the terms of settlement and reformulate them at a stage prior to reference to an ADR process. This becomes evident by a comparison of the wording of the two provisions. Section 73(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Section 89(1) of Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1996 relating to the final stage of relating to a stage before reference to an settlement process in conciliation. ADR process. When it appears to the conciliator that there Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, he shall be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement formulate the terms of settlement and give and submit them to the parties for their them to the parties for their observations observations. After receiving the and after receiving the observations of the observations of the parties, the conciliator parties, the Court may reformulate the may reformulate the terms of a possible terms of a possible settlement and refer the settlement in the light of such observations. same for (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or (d) mediation. Formulation and re-formulation of terms of settlement by the court is therefore wholly out of place at the stage of pre ADR reference. It is not possible for courts to perform these acts at a preliminary hearing to decide whether a case should be referred to an ADR process and, if so, which ADR process.
11. If the reference is to be made to arbitration, the terms of settlement formulated by the court will be of no use, as what is referred to arbitration is the dispute and not the terms of settlement; and the Arbitrator will adjudicate upon the dispute and give his decision by way of award. If the reference is to conciliation/mediation/Lok Adalat, then drawing up the terms of the settlement or reformulating them is the job of the conciliator or the mediator or the Lok Adalat, after going through the entire process of conciliation/ mediation. Thus, the terms of settlement drawn up by the court will be totally useless in any subsequent ADR process. Why then the courts should be burdened with the onerous and virtually impossible, but redundant, task of formulating terms of settlement at pre-reference stage?
12. It will not be possible for a court to formulate the terms of the settlement, unless the judge discusses the matter in detail with both parties. The court formulating the terms of settlement merely on the basis of pleadings is neither feasible nor possible. The requirement that the court should formulate the terms of settlement is therefore a great hindrance to courts in implementing section 89 of the Code. This Court therefore diluted this anomaly in Salem Bar (II) by equating "terms of settlement" to a "summary of disputes" meaning thereby that the court is only required to formulate a `summary of disputes' and not `terms of settlement'. How should section 89 be interpreted?
13. The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled. Where the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, the provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words. Departure from the literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired. Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views. As observed by this Court in somewhat different context:
"When a procedure is prescribed by the Legislature, it is not for the court to substitute a different one according to its notion of justice. When the Legislature has spoken, the Judges cannot afford to be wiser." (See: Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi - (1975) 4 SCC 298).
There is however an exception to this general rule. Where the words used in the statutory provision are vague and ambiguous or where the plain and normal meaning of its words or grammatical construction thereof would lead to confusion, absurdity, repugnancy with other provisions, the courts may, instead of adopting the plain and grammatical construction, use the interpretative tools to set right the situation, by adding or omitting or substituting the words in the Statute. When faced with an apparently defective provision in a statute, courts prefer to assume that the draftsman had committed a mistake rather than concluding that the Legislature has deliberately introduced an absurd or irrational statutory provision. Departure from the literal rule of plain and straight reading can however be only in exceptional cases, where the anomalies make the literal compliance of a provision impossible, or absurd or so impractical as to defeat the very object of the provision. We may also mention purposive interpretation to avoid absurdity and irrationality is more readily and easily employed in relation to procedural provisions than with reference to substantive provisions.
(13.1) Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn., page 228), under the caption `modification of the language to meet the intention' in the chapter dealing with `Exceptional Construction' states the position succinctly:
"Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, which can hardly have been intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This may be done by departing from the rules of grammar, by giving an unusual meaning to particular words, or by rejecting them altogether, on the ground that the legislature could not possibly have intended what its words signify, and that the modifications made are mere corrections of careless language and really give the true meaning. Where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law, except in a case of necessity, or the absolute intractability of the language used."
This Court in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh [AIR 1955 SC 830] approved and adopted the said approach.
(13.2) In Shamrao V.Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 324], this Court reiterated the principle from Maxwell:
".....if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what commonsense would show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided."
(13.3) In Molar Mal vs. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd. - 2004 (4) SCC 285, this Court while reiterating that courts will have to follow the rule of literal construction, which enjoins the court to take the words as used by the Legislature and to give it the meaning which naturally implies, held that there is an exception to that rule. This Court observed:
"That exception comes into play when application of literal construction of the words in the statute leads to absurdity, inconsistency or when it is shown that the legal context in which the words are used or by reading the statute as a whole, it requires a different meaning."
(13.4) In Mangin v. Inland Revenue Commission [1971 (1) All.ER 179], the Privy Council held:
"......The object of the construction of a statute, be it to ascertain the will of the legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. If, therefore a literal interpretation would produce such a result, and the language admits of an interpretation which would avoid it, then such an interpretation may be adopted."
(13.5) A classic example of correcting an error committed by the draftsman in legislative drafting is the substitution of the words `defendant's witnesses' by this Court for the words `plaintiff's witnesses' occurring in Order VII Rule 14(4) of the Code, in Salem Bar- II. We extract below the relevant portion of the said decision:
"Order VII relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order VIII relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order VIII Rule 1A(4) a document not produced by defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant's witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of 'defendant's witnesses', the words 'plaintiff's witnesses' have been mentioned in Order VII Rule (4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words 'plaintiff's witnesses, would be read as 'defendant's witnesses' in Order VII Rule 4. We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature."
(13.6) Justice G.P. Singh extracts four conditions that should be present to justify departure from the plain words of the Statute, in his treatise "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" (12th Edn. - 2010, Lexis Nexis - page 144) from the decision of the House of Lords in Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd., [1978 (1) All ER 948] :
"......a court would only be justified in departing from the plain words of the statute when it is satisfied that (1) there is clear and gross balance of anomaly; (2) Parliament, the legislative promoters and the draftsman could not have envisaged such anomaly and could not have been prepared to accept it in the interest of a supervening legislative objective; (3) the anomaly can be obviated without detriment to such a legislative objective; and (4) the language of the statute is susceptible of the modification required to obviate the anomaly."
14. All the aforesaid four conditions justifying departure from the literal rule, exist with reference to section 89 of the Code. Therefore, in Salem Bar -II, by judicial interpretation the entire process of formulating the terms of settlement, giving them to the parties for their observation and reformulating the terms of possible settlement after receiving the observations, contained in sub- section (1) of section 89, is excluded or done away with by stating that the said provision merely requires formulating a summary of disputes. Further, this Court in Salem Bar-II, adopted the following definition of `mediation' suggested in the model mediation rules, in spite of a different definition in section 89(2)(d) :
"Settlement by `mediation' means the process by which a mediator appointed by parties or by the Court, as the case may be, mediates the dispute between the parties to the suit by the application of the provisions of the Mediation Rules, 2003 in Part II, and in particular, by facilitating discussion between parties directly or by communicating with each other through the mediator, by assisting parties in identifying issues, reducing misunderstandings, clarifying priorities, exploring areas of compromise, generating options in an attempt to solve the dispute and emphasizing that it is the parties' own responsibility for making decisions which affect them."
All over the country the courts have been referring cases under section 89 to mediation by assuming and understanding `mediation' to mean a dispute resolution process by negotiated settlement with the assistance of a neutral third party. Judicial settlement is understood as referring to a compromise entered by the parties with the assistance of the court adjudicating the matter, or another Judge to whom the court had referred the dispute.
15. Section 89 has to be read with Rule 1-A of Order 10 which requires the court to direct the parties to opt for any of the five modes of alternative dispute resolution processes and on their option refer the matter. The said rule does not require the court to either formulate the terms of settlement or make available such terms of settlement to the parties to reformulate the terms of possible settlement after receiving the observations of the parties. Therefore the only practical way of reading Section 89 and Order 10, Rule 1-A is that after the pleadings are complete and after seeking admission/denials wherever required, and before framing issues, the court will have recourse to section 89 of the Code. Such recourse requires the court to consider and record the nature of the dispute, inform the parties about the five options available and take note of their preferences and then refer them to one of the alternative dispute resolution processes.
16. In view of the foregoing, it has to be concluded that proper interpretation of section 89 of the Code requires two changes from a plain and literal reading of the section. Firstly, it is not necessary for the court, before referring the parties to an ADR process to formulate or re- formulate the terms of a possible settlement. It is sufficient if the court merely describes the nature of dispute (in a sentence or two) and makes the reference. Secondly, the definitions of `judicial settlement' and `mediation' in clauses (c) and (d) of section 89(2) shall have to be interchanged to correct the draftsman's error. Clauses (c) and (d) of section 89(2) of the Code will read as under when the two terms are interchanged: (c) for "mediation", the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for "judicial settlement", the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. The above changes made by interpretative process shall remain in force till the legislature corrects the mistakes, so that section 89 is not rendered meaningless and infructuous. Whether the reference to ADR Process is mandatory?
17. Section 89 starts with the words "where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement". This clearly shows that cases which are not suited for ADR process should not be referred under section 89 of the Code. The court has to form an opinion that a case is one that is capable of being referred to and settled through ADR process. Having regard to the tenor of the provisions of Rule 1A of Order 10 of the Code, the civil court should invariably refer cases to ADR process. Only in certain recognized excluded categories of cases, it may choose not to refer to an ADR process. Where the case is unsuited for reference to any of the ADR process, the court will have to briefly record the reasons for not resorting to any of the settlement procedures prescribed under section 89 of the Code. Therefore, having a hearing after completion of pleadings, to consider recourse to ADR process under section 89 of the Code, is mandatory. But actual reference to an ADR process in all cases is not mandatory. Where the case falls under an excluded category there need not be reference to ADR process. In all other case reference to ADR process is a must.
18. The following categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR process having regard to their nature :
(i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve public interest or interest of numerous persons who are not parties before the court. (In fact, even a compromise in such a suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before its acceptance).
(ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices (as contrasted from disputes between two groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, association etc.).
(iii) Cases involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of administration.
(iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion etc.
(v) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against government.
(vi) Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences.
19. All other suits and cases of civil nature in particular the following categories of cases (whether pending in civil courts or other special Tribunals/Forums) are normally suitable for ADR processes :
(i) All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including - disputes arising out of contracts (including all money claims); - disputes relating to specific performance; - disputes between suppliers and customers; - disputes between bankers and customers; - disputes between developers/builders and customers; - disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees; - disputes between insurer and insured;
(ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including - disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; - disputes relating to partition/division among family members/co- parceners/co-owners; and - disputes relating to partnership among partners.
(iii) All cases where there is a need for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite of the disputes, including - disputes between neighbours (relating to easementary rights, encroachments, nuisance etc.); - disputes between employers and employees; - disputes among members of societies/associations/Apartment owners Associations;
(iv) All cases relating to tortious liability including - claims for compensation in motor accidents/other accidents; and
(v) All consumer disputes including - disputes where a trader/ supplier/ manufacturer/ service provider is keen to maintain his business/professional reputation and credibility or `product popularity. The above enumeration of `suitable' and `unsuitable' categorization of cases is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid. They are illustrative, which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the court/Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process. How to decide the appropriate ADR process under section 89?
20. Section 89 refers to five types of ADR procedures, made up of one adjudicatory process (arbitration) and four negotiatory (non adjudicatory) processes - conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement and Lok Adalat settlement. The object of section 89 of the Code is that settlement should be attempted by adopting an appropriate ADR process before the case proceeds to trial. Neither section 89 nor Rule 1A of Order 10 of the Code is intended to supersede or modify the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. On the other hand, section 89 of the Code makes it clear that two of the ADR processes - Arbitration and Conciliation, will be governed by the provisions of the AC Act and two other ADR Processes - Lok Adalat Settlement and Mediation (See : amended definition in para 18 above), will be governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act. As for the last of the ADR processes - judicial settlement (See : amended definition in para 18 above), section 89 makes it clear that it is not governed by any enactment and the court will follow such procedure as may be prescribed (by appropriate rules).
21. Rule 1A of Order 10 requires the court to give the option to the parties, to choose any of the ADR processes. This does not mean an individual option, but a joint option or consensus about the choice of the ADR process. On the other hand, section 89 vests the choice of reference to the court. There is of course no inconsistency. Section 89 of the Code gives the jurisdiction to refer to ADR process and Rules 1A to IC of Order 10 lay down the manner in which the said jurisdiction is to be exercised. The scheme is that the court explains the choices available regarding ADR process to the parties, permits them to opt for a process by consensus, and if there is no consensus, proceeds to choose the process.
22. Let us next consider which of the ADR processes require mutual consent of the parties and which of them do not require the consent of parties.
Arbitration
23. Arbitration is an adjudicatory dispute resolution process by a private forum, governed by the provisions of the AC Act. The said Act makes it clear that there can be reference to arbitration only if there is an `arbitration agreement' between the parties. If there was a pre-existing arbitration agreement between the parties, in all probability, even before the suit reaches the stage governed by Order 10 of the Code, the matter would have stood referred to arbitration either by invoking section 8 or section 11 of the AC Act, and there would be no need to have recourse to arbitration under section 89 of the Code. Section 89 therefore pre-supposes that there is no pre- existing arbitration agreement. Even if there was no pre-existing arbitration agreement, the parties to the suit can agree for arbitration when the choice of ADR processes is offered to them by the court under section 89 of the Code. Such agreement can be by means of a joint memo or joint application or a joint affidavit before the court, or by record of the agreement by the court in the ordersheet signed by the parties. Once there is such an agreement in writing signed by parties, the matter can be referred to arbitration under section 89 of the Code; and on such reference, the provisions of AC Act will apply to the arbitration, and as noticed in Salem Bar-I, the case will go outside the stream of the court permanently and will not come back to the court.
24. If there is no agreement between the parties for reference to arbitration, the court cannot refer the matter to arbitration under section 89 of the Code. This is evident from the provisions of AC Act. A court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to refer unwilling parties to arbitration, if there is no arbitration agreement. This Court has consistently held that though section 89 of the Code mandates reference to ADR processes, reference to arbitration under section 89 of the Code could only be with the consent of both sides and not otherwise.
(24.1) In Salem Bar (I), this Court held :
"It is quite obvious that the reason why Section 89 has been inserted is to try and see that all the cases which are filed in court need not necessarily be decided by the court itself. Keeping in mind the law's delays and the limited number of Judges which are available, it has now become imperative that resort should be had to alternative dispute resolution mechanism with a view to bring to an end litigation between the parties at an early date. The alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism as contemplated by Section 89 is arbitration or conciliation or judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. x x x x x If the parties agree to arbitration, then the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply and that case will go outside the stream of the court but resorting to conciliation or judicial settlement or mediation with a view to settle the dispute would not ipso facto take the case outside the judicial system. All that this means is that effort has to be made to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties but if conciliation or mediation or judicial settlement is not possible, despite efforts being made, the case will ultimately go to trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
(24.2) In Salem Bar - (II), this Court held :
"Some doubt as to a possible conflict has been expressed in view of used of the word "may" in Section 89 when it stipulates that "the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for" and use of the word "shall" in Order 10 Rule 1-A when it states that "the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub- section (1) of Section 89".
The intention of the legislature behind enacting Section 89 is that where it appears to the court that there exists an element of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, they, at the instance of the court, shall be made to apply their mind so as to opt for one or the other of the four ADR methods mentioned in the section and if the parties do not agree, the court shall refer them to one or the other of the said modes. Section 89 uses both the words "shall" and "may" whereas Order 10 Rule 1-A uses the word "shall" but on harmonious reading of these provisions it becomes clear that the use of the word "may" in Section 89 only governs the aspect of reformulation of the terms of a possible settlement and its reference to one of ADR methods. There is no conflict. It is evident that what is referred to one of the ADR modes is the dispute which is summarized in the terms of settlement formulated or reformulated in terms of Section 89. One of the modes to which the dispute can be referred is "arbitration". Section 89(2) provides that where a dispute has been referred for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the 1996 Act") shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of the 1996 Act. Section 8 of the 1996 Act deals with the power to refer parties to arbitration where there is arbitration agreement. As held in P.Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju [2000 (4) SCC 539] the 1996 Act governs a case where arbitration is agreed upon before or pending a suit by all the parties. The 1996 Act, however, does not contemplate a situation as in Section 89 of the Code where the court asks the parties to choose one or other ADRs including arbitration and the parties choose arbitration as their option. Of course, the parties have to agree for arbitration." (Emphasis supplied)
(24.3) The position was reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander [2007 (5) SCC 719] thus :
"It should not also be overlooked that even though Section 89 mandates courts to refer pending suits to any of the several alternative dispute resolution processes mentioned therein, there cannot be a reference to arbitration even under Section 89 CPC, unless there is a mutual consent of all parties, for such reference."
(Emphasis supplied)
(24.4) Therefore, where there is no pre-existing arbitration agreement between the parties, the consent of all the parties to the suit will be necessary, for referring the subject matter of the suit to arbitration under section 89 of the Code. Conciliation
25. Conciliation is a non-adjudicatory ADR process, which is also governed by the provisions of AC Act. There can be a valid reference to conciliation only if both parties to the dispute agree to have negotiations with the help of a third party or third parties either by an agreement or by the process of invitation and acceptance provided in section 62 of AC Act followed by appointment of conciliator/s as provided in section 64 of AC Act. If both parties do not agree for conciliation, there can be no `conciliation'. As a consequence, as in the case of arbitration, the court cannot refer the parties to conciliation under section 89, in the absence of consent by all parties. As contrasted from arbitration, when a matter is referred to conciliation, the matter does not go out of the stream of court process permanently. If there is no settlement, the matter is returned to the court for framing issues and proceeding with the trial. The other three ADR Processes
26. If the parties are not agreeable for either arbitration or conciliation, both of which require consent of all parties, the court has to consider which of the other three ADR processes (Lok Adalat, Mediation and Judicial Settlement) which do not require the consent of parties for reference, is suitable and appropriate and refer the parties to such ADR process. If mediation process is not available (for want of a mediation centre or qualified mediators), necessarily the court will have to choose between reference to Lok Adalat or judicial settlement. If facility of mediation is available, then the choice becomes wider. It the suit is complicated or lengthy, mediation will be the recognized choice. If the suit is not complicated and the disputes are easily sortable or could be settled by applying clear cut legal principles, Lok Adalat will be the preferred choice. If the court feels that a suggestion or guidance by a Judge would be appropriate, it can refer it to another Judge for dispute resolution. The court has used its discretion in choosing the ADR process judiciously, keeping in view the nature of disputes, interests of parties and expedition in dispute resolution. Whether the settlement in an ADR process is binding in itself?
27. When the court refers the matter to arbitration under Section 89 of the Act, as already noticed, the case goes out of the stream of the court and becomes an independent proceeding before the arbitral tribunal. Arbitration being an adjudicatory process, it always ends in a decision. There is also no question of failure of ADR process or the matter being returned to the court with a failure report. The award of the arbitrators is binding on the parties and is executable/ enforceable as if a decree of a court, having regard to Section 36 of the AC Act. If any settlement is reached in the arbitration proceedings, then the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on such settlement, will also be binding and executable/enforceable as if a decree of a court, under Section 30 of the AC Act.
28. The other four ADR processes are non-adjudicatory and the case does not go out of the stream of the court when a reference is made to such a non- adjudicatory ADR forum. The court retains its control and jurisdiction over the case, even when the matter is before the ADR forum. When a matter is settled through conciliation, the Settlement Agreement is enforceable as if it is a decree of the court having regard to Section 74 read with Section 30 of the AC Act. Similarly, when a settlement takes place before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat award is also deemed to be a decree of the civil court and executable as such under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though the settlement agreement in a conciliation or a settlement award of a Lok Adalat may not require the seal of approval of the court for its enforcement when they are made in a direct reference by parties without the intervention of court, the position will be different if they are made on a reference by a court in a pending suit/proceedings. As the court continues to retain control and jurisdiction over the cases which it refers to conciliations, or Lok Adalats, the settlement agreement in conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court for recording it and disposal in its terms. Where the reference is to a neutral third party (`mediation' as defined above) on a court reference, though it will be deemed to be reference to Lok Adalat, as court retains its control and jurisdiction over the matter, the mediation settlement will have to be placed before the court for recording the settlement and disposal. Where the matter is referred to another Judge and settlement is arrived at before him, such settlement agreement will also have to be placed before the court which referred the matter and that court will make a decree in terms of it. Whenever such settlements reached before non-adjudicatory ADR Fora are placed before the court, the court should apply the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code and make a decree/order in terms of the settlement, in regard to the subject matter of the suit/proceeding. In regard to matters/disputes which are not the subject matter of the suit/proceedings, the court will have to direct that the settlement shall be governed by Section 74 of AC Act (in respect of conciliation settlements) or Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in respect of settlements by a Lok Adalat or a Mediator). Only then such settlements will be effective.
Summation
29. Having regard to the provisions of Section 89 and Rule 1-A of Order 10, the stage at which the court should explore whether the matter should be referred to ADR processes, is after the pleadings are complete, and before framing the issues, when the matter is taken up for preliminary hearing for examination of parties under Order 10 of the Code. However, if for any reason, the court had missed the opportunity to consider and refer the matter to ADR processes under Section 89 before framing issues, nothing prevents the court from resorting to Section 89 even after framing issues. But once evidence is commenced, the court will be reluctant to refer the matter to the ADR processes lest it becomes a tool for protracting the trial.
30. Though in civil suits, the appropriate stage for considering reference to ADR processes is after the completion of pleadings, in family disputes or matrimonial cases, the position can be slightly different. In those cases, the relationship becomes hostile on account of the various allegations in the petition against the spouse. The hostility will be further aggravated by the counter-allegations made by the respondent in his or her written statement or objections. Therefore, as far as Family Courts are concerned, the ideal stage for mediation will be immediately after service of respondent and before the respondent files objections/written statements. Be that as it may.
31. We may summarize the procedure to be adopted by a court under section 89 of the Code as under:
(a) When the pleadings are complete, before framing issues, the court shall fix a preliminary hearing for appearance of parties. The court should acquaint itself with the facts of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties.
(b) The court should first consider whether the case falls under any of the category of the cases which are required to be tried by courts and not fit to be referred to any ADR processes. If it finds the case falls under any excluded category, it should record a brief order referring to the nature of the case and why it is not fit for reference to ADR processes. It will then proceed with the framing of issues and trial.
(c) In other cases (that is, in cases which can be referred to ADR processes) the court should explain the choice of five ADR processes to the parties to enable them to exercise their option.
(d) The court should first ascertain whether the parties are willing for arbitration. The court should inform the parties that arbitration is an adjudicatory process by a chosen private forum and reference to arbitration will permanently take the suit outside the ambit of the court. The parties should also be informed that the cost of arbitration will have to be borne by them. Only if both parties agree for arbitration, and also agree upon the arbitrator, the matter should be referred to arbitration.
(e) If the parties are not agreeable for arbitration, the court should ascertain whether the parties are agreeble for reference to conciliation which will be governed by the provisions of the AC Act. If all the parties agree for reference to conciliation and agree upon the conciliator/s, the court can refer the matter to conciliation in accordance with section 64 of the AC Act.
(f) If parties are not agreeable for arbitration and conciliation, which is likely to happen in most of the cases for want of consensus, the court should, keeping in view the preferences/options of parties, refer the matter to any one of the other three other ADR processes :
(a) Lok Adalat;
(b) mediation by a neutral third party facilitator or mediator; and
(c) a judicial settlement, where a Judge assists the parties to arrive at a settlement.
(g) If the case is simple which may be completed in a single sitting, or cases relating to a matter where the legal principles are clearly settled and there is no personal animosity between the parties (as in the case of motor accident claims), the court may refer the matter to Lok Adalat. In case where the questions are complicated or cases which may require several rounds of negotiations, the court may refer the matter to mediation. Where the facility of mediation is not available or where the parties opt for the guidance of a Judge to arrive at a settlement, the court may refer the matter to another Judge for attempting settlement.
(h) If the reference to the ADR process fails, on receipt of the Report of the ADR Forum, the court shall proceed with hearing of the suit. If there is a settlement, the court shall examine the settlement and make a decree in terms of it, keeping the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code in mind.
(i) If the settlement includes disputes which are not the subject matter of the suit, the court may direct that the same will be governed by Section 74 of the AC Act (if it is a Conciliation Settlement) or Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (if it is a settlement by a Lok Adalat or by mediation which is a deemed Lok Adalat). This will be necessary as many settlement agreements deal with not only the disputes which are the subject matter of the suit or proceeding in which the reference is made, but also other disputes which are not the subject matter of the suit.
(j) If any term of the settlement is ex facie illegal or unforceable, the court should draw the attention of parties thereto to avoid further litigations and disputes about executability.
32. The Court should also bear in mind the following consequential aspects, while giving effect to Section 89 of the Code :
(i) If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. Nothing further need be stated in the order sheet.
(ii) If the reference is to any other ADR process, the court should briefly record that having regard to the nature of dispute, the case deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat, or mediation or judicial settlement, as the case may be. There is no need for an elaborate order for making the reference.
(iii) The requirement in Section 89(1) that the court should formulate or reformulate the terms of settlement would only mean that court has to briefly refer to the nature of dispute and decide upon the appropriate ADR process.
(iv) If the Judge in charge of the case assists the parties and if settlement negotiations fail, he should not deal with the adjudication of the matter, to avoid apprehensions of bias and prejudice. It is therefore advisable to refer cases proposed for Judicial Settlement to another Judge.
(v) If the court refers the matter to an ADR process (other than Arbitration), it should keep track of the matter by fixing a hearing date for the ADR Report. The period allotted for the ADR process can normally vary from a week to two months (which may be extended in exceptional cases, depending upon the availability of the alternative forum, the nature of case etc.). Under no circumstances the court should allow the ADR process to become a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous litigant intent upon dragging on the proceedings.
(vi) Normally the court should not send the original record of the case when referring the matter for an ADR forum. It should make available only copies of relevant papers to the ADR forum. (For this purpose, when pleadings are filed the court may insist upon filing of an extra copy). However if the case is referred to a Court annexed Mediation Centre which is under the exclusive control and supervision of a Judicial Officer, the original file may be made available wherever necessary.
33. The procedure and consequential aspects referred to in the earlier two paragraphs are intended to be general guidelines subject to such changes as the concerned court may deem fit with reference to the special circumstances of a case. We have referred to the procedure and process rather elaborately as we find that section 89 has been a non-starter with many courts. Though the process under Section 89 appears to be lengthy and complicated, in practice the process is simple: know the dispute; exclude `unfit' cases; ascertain consent for arbitration or conciliation; if there is no consent, select Lok Adalat for simple cases and mediation for all other cases, reserving reference to a Judge assisted settlement only in exceptional or special cases.
Conclusion
34. Coming back to this case, we may refer to the decision in Sukanya Holdings relied upon by the respondents, to contend that for a reference to arbitration under section 89 of the Code, consent of parties is not required. The High Court assumed that Sukanya Holdings has held that section 89 enables the civil court to refer a case to arbitration even in the absence of an arbitration agreement. Sukanya Holdings does not lay down any such proposition. In that decision, this Court was considering the question as to whether an application under section 8 of the AC Act could be maintained even where a part of the subject matter of the suit was not covered by an arbitration agreement. The only observations in the decision relating to Section 89 are as under:
"Reliance was placed on Section 89 CPC in support of the argument that the matter should have been referred to arbitration. In our view, Section 89 CPC cannot be resorted to for interpreting Section 8 of the Act as it stands on a different footing and it would be applicable even in cases where there is no arbitration agreement for referring the dispute for arbitration. Further, for that purpose, the court has to apply its mind to the condition contemplated under Section 89 CPC and even if application under Section 8 of the Act is rejected, the court is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the said section."
The observations only mean that even when there is no existing arbitration agreement enabling filing of an application under section 8 of the Act, there can be a reference under section 89 to arbitration if parties agree to arbitration. The observations in Sukanya Holdings do not assist the first respondent as they were made in the context of considering a question as to whether section 89 of the Code could be invoked for seeking a reference under section 8 of the AC Act in a suit, where only a part of the subject- matter of the suit was covered by arbitration agreement and other parts were not covered by arbitration agreement. The first respondent next contended that the effect of the decision in Sukanya Holdings is that "section 89 of CPC would be applicable even in cases where there is no arbitration agreement for referring the dispute to arbitration." There can be no dispute in regard to the said proposition as Section 89 deals, not only with arbitration but also four other modes of non-adjudicatory resolution processes and existence of an arbitration agreement is not a condition precedent for exercising power under Section 89 of the Code in regard to the said four ADR processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment