“ARBITRATION UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908”
2022-23
Date of Submission: 15.03.2023
Faculty Incharge Submitted by
Mr. Jaya Vasudevan Akansha Gulati
(Roll No. 6)
(Enrolment ID No: PG/16/2022/599)
ABSTRACT
The term "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (often abbreviated as "ADR") refers to a range of
strategies for settling disagreements through ways other than going to court. Sec. 89 of the
CPC, which was enacted by the Act of 1999 and went into effect on 01.07.2002, codifies the
legislative authority to the court to refer civil disputes to different ADR mechanisms
indicated in the Section when it thinks it suitable to do so. The Act of 1999 enacted Section
89 It came into effect on 01.07.2002. The ADR system is helpful in providing parties with
justice that is affordable, straightforward, efficient, and easily accessible. If the overarching
goal of resolving all of these issues is to come to some kind of agreement, then there is no
reason not to pursue solutions that may be reached peacefully via the use of compromise.
This research paper is an attempt to analyze relevant provision under Civil Procedure code
pertaining to Arbitration and need of the same, to examine Historical evolution and issues
pertaining to Section 89 Of CPC, to determine 2019 amendment pertaining to section 8 of
arbitration act and difference between procedure as prescribed under section 89 of CPC and
procedure under arbitration agreement, to critically analyze the gaps in existing section and
ways to mend those gaps.
INTRODUCTION
In India, resolving legal disagreements can be done in a number of different ways.
Alternative Dispute Resolution is one of these methods, and it is stated & formulated in terms
of Section 89 of the CPC. This provision may be found in California law. Arbitration,
Conciliation, and Mediation are all components of Alternative Dispute Resolution on their
own. Because section 89(2) states that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 will apply in situations where a dispute has been referred for arbitration or conciliation,
this would imply that the proceedings of such a matter for arbitration and conciliation took
place in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act. Section 8 of the Act from 1996
addresses the court's authority to order the parties involved to participate in arbitration. This,
however, is conditional on their being a binding arbitration agreement in place between the
parties engaged in the dispute.
In acc. with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the parties would make reference to
arbitration; however, in accordance with Section 89 of the code, the court actually asks the
parties to choose one or more alternative dispute resolutions (ADRs), including arbitration,
and the parties may choose accordingly. This is one of the key differences between the two
pieces of legislation.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
“When we read Section 89, it states, where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of
a settlement shows that this provision has vested decision making power on the courts as to
when they find the elements of settlement, they could refer the suit to any alternative dispute
resolution ways. Therefore, this provision is discretionary rather than being obligatory”. In
addition, the Law Commission of India has taken into account the SC's decision in Afcons
and has reached the conclusion that Sec. 89, which allows for the settlement of disputes
outside of court, is worded incorrectly and that the language adopted has made it difficult to
give effect to the provision, and so Section 89 should be recast. As sec. 89 was adopted to
lower the court's burden, however, analyzing as well as formulating the terms & issues before
sending it to arbitration might leave the provision futile.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
“Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can point out
to them how the normal winner is often a looser in fees, cost and time. As a peace maker, the
lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man” -- Abraham Lincoln
As an alternative to traditional court proceedings namely, litigation, ADR has gained
significance where disputes are solved via unbiased third party. Arbitration is one of the way
to settle the disputes between parties without involvement of the traditional courts. It’s the
platform everyone has an eye on its performance and growth and in coming years.
Idea behind choosing this topic was solely influenced by the recent trend of preferring
arbitration over commercial litigation. Here, lies the significance of my research which tends
to analyse the practical realities of Section 89 as given under CPC,1809.
LITERATURE REVIEW
“Alternate Dispute Resolution Methods and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”:- In this
author has tried to critically examine Constitutional validity of Section 89 of CPC. However,
failed to provide details regarding various intricacies of section 89 CPC.
Effectiveness of Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure:- In this author has examined
whether insertion of section 89 in CPC is sufficient to fuel resolution through alternative
disputes and author has further analysed evolution of section 89 CPC, 1809.
Section 89 of CPC- A Critical Analysis: In this author has critically discussed how
arbitration proceeding under section 89 is different from arbitration proceeding as initiated by
parties through arbitration agreement.
Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act: In this article author has analysed Section 8
of A& C Act exhaustively and has discussed difference b/w sec. 8 of arbitration and section
89 of CPC.
2019 Amendments to Arbitration and Conciliation Act: In this article author has critically
analysed 2019 amendments specifically amendment to sec. 45 which deals with refernce
power of court.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. To analyze relevant provision under Civil Procedure code pertaining to Arbitration
and need of the same.
2. To examine Historical evolution and issues pertaining to Section 89 Of CPC.
3. To determine 2019 amendment pertaining to section 8 of arbitration act and difference
between procedure as prescribed under section 89 of CPC and procedure under
arbitration agreement.
4. To critically analyze the gaps in existing section and ways to mend those gaps.
RESEARCH QUESTION
1. What is the relevant provision under Civil Procedure code pertaining to Arbitration
and its significance?
2. What is the Historical evolution and issues pertaining to Section 89 Of CPC?
3. How Procedure as prescribed under section 89 of CPC is different from procedure
under arbitration agreement (In light of 2019 Amendment to arbitration act)?
4. What are the gaps in existing section and ways to mend those gaps?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study would be a Doctrinal research Information from research studies, journals,
magazines, bulletins, newspapers, foreign publications, the internet, and other relevant
material will be gathered. Further research could be classified as descriptive, explanatory,
qualitative research.
CHAPTERIZATION
The FIRST CHAPTER would be an INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER dealing Research
problem, research questions, objectives, literature review of the present study.
The SECOND CHAPTER would be dealing with HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF
SECTION 89 CPC, 1908, thereby the chapter would be critically analyzing, how section 89
is inserted in the CPC & its evolution over time. Concerns about the quality of India's system
for delivering justice are voiced in the 163rd report of the Law Commission of India on the
CPC (Amendment Bill), 1997. The commission adds that a halt in case processing puts an
end to justice.
THIRD CHAPTER would be dealing ANALYSIS OF THE SECTION WITH VARIOUS
JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND ISSUES THEREIN. Thus inter alia, would be analysing
Afcaon’s case, “Salem Advocate’s Bar Association case” 1 and, “Tamil Nadu vs. Union of
India”2, there by various issues discussed therein would be exhaustively answered , which
inter alia include followings issues, the ways in which provision will be put into effect, rules
for deciding which instances to send to mediation, A management strategy for deciding when
and how to use alternative dispute resolution What procedures must be followed when using
Section 89's alternative dispute resolution provisions.
FOURTH CHAPTER would be dealing WITH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ARBITRATION PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC, 1908 FROM
PROCEDURE UNDER AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNDER SEC. 8. Sec. 89
of the CPC differs from the Arbitration and conciliation Act in that the parties in the former
must agree to use arbitration, while in the latter the court must ask the parties to select
between arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution methods.
FIFTH CHAPTER would be CONCLUSION AND SUGFGSSTION/
RECOMMENDATIONS, in this gaps in section 89 of CPC and suggestions to cure that gap
would be analysed and discussed exhaustively
1
Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 496
2
Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 75
2. SECION 89: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Status of ADR Since inception
A provision for ADR was incorporated into the design of the CPC from the very beginning of
the project. Notwithstanding this, it was ultimately superseded by the Arbitration Act.
Arbitration and the process outlined in the previous section's Second Schedule were just
mentioned in this provision (now repealed). Once the 1940 Arbitration Act was passed into
law, there was a widespread consensus that Section 89 was no longer required because the
new law had successfully integrated the several sections of previous legislation.
2.2 Failure Of 1940 Act
Insofar as the goals of the 1940 Act were concerned, the foregoing considerations led to the
most dreadful of outcomes. For example, in the case “M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation vs. M/s.
Rattan Singh & Sons, the Indian Supreme Court made it very obvious how terrible the state
of India's alternative forums for resolving legal disputes actually is”.
As a consequence of the comments received, this section has been revised to include other
settlement choices that do not involve arbitration.
2.3 Amendment to CPC
Prior to the 1990s, it was difficult for Indians to participate in official mediation processes. It
was thought that with the assistance of Section 89, advancements in law that occurred in
other countries may perhaps be assimilated into Indian law. The CPC (Amendment) Act,
1999 Act adds Sec. 89 to CPC together with the related rules (Order 10 Rules 1A, 1B, and
1C) in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7 and 20, respectively, of that Act (w.e.f.
1.7.2002). 129th Law commission’s report advocated establishing a court system for
conciliation system and emphasising importance of conciliation and arbitration as a way of
alternative dispute resolution. Both of these recommendations were included in the report. In
addition, the Arrears Committee, which is also called "Malimath Committee," had proposed
that the legislation be revised to integrate ADR procedures in its report. This recommendation
was included in the Arrears Committee's report. In response to recommendations made by the
Malimath Committee & Indian Law Commission, legislators in India submitted the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill in the year 1997.
Because the amendments that were brought about by that act did not gives a retroactive effect
and is not applicable to any proceedings wherein the issues were resolved before effective
date of Sec. 7 of that act, it is to be considered like Sec. 7 and 20 of the CPC Amendment Act
of 1999 hadn’t been passed. This is because the amendments that were brought about by that
act did not apply to any suit in which the issues were resolved prior to the date on which
Section 7 of that act became effective.
2.4 Reason For Addition Of Sec. 89
In SOR that accompanied the introduction of the CPC(Amendment) Bill, 1997, the following
justification for the addition of new Section 89 was provided:
The SOR proposed that the court be compelled to make reference to the subject once it has
been formed for settlement through conciliation, arbitration, mediation, or Lok Adalat,
judicial settlement. This suggestion was made in response to a request made by the SOR.
The problem described above has to be solved before the report from the Law Commission
can be implemented, as can a productive conciliation procedure.
In the event that the parties are unable to reach a resolution to their dispute through
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the litigation can only proceed in the court in where it
was first filed.
In accordance with Indian Constitution’s article 39A, which was ratified in 1976, the state is
responsible for ensuring free legal assistance through proper legislation or programmes to
guarantee that no citizen is denied opportunities to achieve justice due to economic or other
impairments, and that the legal system runs in a way that promotes justice based on equal
opportunity. The state also bears the duty to guarantee that the judicial system works in a way
that advances justice based on equal opportunity. Therefore, the goals of our Constitutional
Republic, as well as the goals of any progressive democracy, include making sure that
everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, has easy access to the justice system, that
those who are poor and vulnerable have access to legal representation, and that the justice
system operates effectively.
The objective of the legislation was commendable given that disputes can be resolved
through methods of ADR that are acceptable to both parties in a fraction of the time and at a
fraction of the cost, without causing damage to relationships, and with fewer cases clogging
up the courts. Yet, in its original form and in its application, much of Section 89 was unclear
and flat-out violated fundamental ADR ideas and processes. Because of this ambiguity, the
courts resisted using Section 89 for a significant portion of its existence.
3.CPC PROVISIONS PERTATINING TO ARBITRATION WITH LEADING CASE
STUDIES: ANALYSIS
3.1 Relevant para of the section 89
“When it seems to the court that there are aspects of a settlement that may be
acceptable to the parties, the court should construct the conditions of settlement and
offer them to the parties for their remarks. This is required under Section 89 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Upon receipt of the parties' views, the court may rework the
conditions of a potential settlement and send them on to either (a) arbitration, (b)
conciliation, or (c) judicial settlement in order to reach a decision”3.
“Where a dispute has been submitted: (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions
of the Arbitration Act, 1996 apply as if the arbitration or conciliation procedures had
been referred for settlement in accordance with the terms of that Act” 4. This is
because the Arbitration Act, 1996 applies as if the arbitration or conciliation
proceedings had been referred for resolution in accordance with the terms of that Act
3.2 Hereinafter mentioned excerpts from Rules 1A, 1B, and 1C of Order X, CPC discuss
associated provisions that pertains to the Arbitration and were adopted through same
amending act5
O. 10 R. 1A
The purpose of Rule 1A is to provide the court with direction to employ a certain type of
ADR. In general, it states that post recording the admissions & denials, the court has the
authority to order the parties to the action to choose one of the two ways of settling the matter
outside of court as outlined in paragraph (1) of Section 89. This provision specifies that the
court has the authority to do so. The court will set a date for the parties to appear in the forum
or authority that they have chosen after they have done so, and the court will schedule the
date.
3
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Act of parliament, 1908 (India)
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
O. 10 R. 1B
Under Rule 1B, questions about an appearance before a conciliation forum or authorities are
handled. When a case is recommended for conciliation under Rule 1A, all of the parties
involved are required to present before the appropriate forum or authority.
O.10 R. 1C
Under Rule 1C, issues pertaining to court appearances following unsuccessful attempts at
mediation are discussed. If a forum or authority that receives a lawsuit under Rule 1A
determines that proceeding with the case is not in the interest of justice, then it shall re-refer
the issue to court and notify the parties that they must appearbe present before the court on a
specified date. If a lawsuit is referred under Rule 1B, then it is required to be re-referred
under Rule 1C.
3.3 Relevant Case Study
Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Others6
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
How should the court proceed to execute CPC Sec. 89 and O. 10 R. 1A?
Is consent from both parties to the litigation necessary to begin arbitration under
Section 89 of the CPC?
Court's findings and observations
a. The question of whether or not alternative dispute resolution procedures Mandatory.
It was noted that, beginning of Sec. 89 reads, "where it seems to the court that there exist
components of a settlement," suggesting that the Court was responsible for deciding whether
or not ADR was appropriate in this case. According to the Court's interpretation of Section
89, courts should prefer ADR, but are not required to make actual use of ADR. It went on to
note that "in all other cases, reference to ADR proceedings is a requirement" and then list a
specific set of situations in which mentioning ADR is not essential.
b. Acceptable cases for alternative dispute resolution
6
Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Others, AIR 2010 SC 24
The Supreme Court then detailed the kind of cases now being heard by civil courts and
special tribunals that would benefit from alternative dispute resolution methods. There are
five broad types of these events:
Questions of law pertaining to commercial transactions, contracts, and trade; Every instance
of a contentious relationship, like marital argument Disputes; Conflicts between neighbours
and members of society are only a few examples of situations in which preserving the status
quo is essential, every consumer complaint and tort case involving a car crash.
When deciding whether or not the cases should go via alternative dispute resolution methods,
the Supreme Court made it plain that any way, they serve as "illustrative"
c. Referral under Section 89: When it made?
The Court determined that after the pleadings were complete but before trial began is the
appropriate time to make the referral under Section 89.
d. Section 89 Procedure Step-by-Step7
The judgement laid out a comprehensive plan for implementing Section 89:
The court's first consideration should be whether or whether the parties are willing to
submit their disagreement to arbitration. It is important that the parties understand that
they will be liable for paying any costs associated with the arbitration process. If the
disputing parties can't resolve the matter through negotiation, they should consider
binding arbitration. Once the subject of arbitration is brought up, court jurisdiction is
automatically waived.
In the event that parties are not willing to engage in any of the ADR methods, the
court must determine which of 3 ADR mechanism available (Lok Adalat, mediation,
and judicial settlement) is viable to deal with the case in hand. The agreement of the
parties is unnecessary in these cases.
e. The problem of enforcing alternative dispute resolution agreements
7
C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 With New Chapter On Commercial Courts (EBC
2014)
The award passed by tribunal could be executed & has the same power as a order of court
under Sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section30 of Act provides that any
award rendered in connection with an arbitration proceeding that results in a settlement shall
be final, conclusive, and binding.
Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in which it stated:
As a result of its improper procedure, the trial court erred in its application of Section
89 of the CPC.
According to Sec. 89 of the CPC, a civil court cannot send a matter to arbitration
unless all parties to the litigation agree to it.
3.4 legality of Sec. 89
“The Salem Advocates' Bar Association filed a petition with the Supreme Court of India
challenging the constitutionality of section 89 on the grounds that it was arbitrary. Many
heated debates occurred, focusing on the following topics”8:
How exactly this rule will be enforced was not made clear.
There are no established criteria for determining which instances should be assigned
for alternative dispute resolution.
Where to take the legal battles
What would be the management formula for sending a disagreement to ADR?
What procedures must be followed when using alternative dispute resolution under
Section 89.
Which court addressed these concerns, if any?
The Supreme Court vehemently defended the clause by explaining that Article 21, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was written with the intention of ensuring the
prompt delivery of justice.
3.5 The Essential Problems With Sec. 89 Of The Cpc
8
Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 496
The settlement terms had to be drafted by the court before any reference to
alternative dispute resolution was allowed under this section. Before making a
decision, the court will have to examine the evidence and, maybe, hear the lawyer's
arguments. An important advantage of alternative dispute resolution is that it prevents
the court from having to decide the terms of a settlement. If he does, the mediator and
the parties may be precluded from seeing the whole picture and considering all of
their options for a resolution.
Issue W.R.T Court Fee: The CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, that altered Sec. 89 of
CPC, also amended a new Sec. 16 of court fees act, that stipulates the following9:
If the court decides to send the parties to a dispute resolution process listed in
Sec. 89 of the CPC plaintiff will be entitled to a certificate from court allowing
him to get the full amount of the fee paid W.R.T such plaint refunded to him
by the Collector.
The fundamental issue comes when a case that has already had its Court
expenses refunded before any referral is made to ADR is brought back to the
same Court because ADR proceedings were unable to resolve the dispute. But,
in the aforementioned case, there is no way to impose further court costs,
making the suit effectively free.
9
The Court Fees Act, 1870, No. 07, Act of parliament, 1870 (India)
4.ARBITRATION ACT 1996 AND SECTION 89
4.1 Section 8 of Arbitration Act
Sec. 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act addresses the possibility of a court
recommending arbitration to the parties. In essence, this provision states that if there is an
arbitration agreement between the parties and the dispute is one that is subject to arbitration,
then any judicial authority before whom any party has brought a case must be directed to
resolve their dispute through arbitration in accordance with Sec. 8 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act. So as to broaden the applicability of arbitration, Section 8 of the
aforementioned Act was revised in 2015 to require court to submit the parties to arbitration
regardless of any decree, court order, or verdict. The inspiration for this provision comes
from Section 34 of the old Arbitration Act of 1940.
Components of Sec. 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 199610
The following elements of this Section are gleaned from a literal interpretation of the text:
First, the parties must have a legally binding arbitration agreement.
Second, the dispute that is the focus of the arbitration must be brought before a court of law.
The third condition is that the arbitration provision or agreement be invoked before the date
on which the initial statement regarding the substance of the dispute is submitted to the
judicial authority.
Fourth, The original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy must be filed alongside
the party's application to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Since provision is mandatory in nature, civil court must refer parties to arbitration, and the
parties have no right to appeal the referral. The arbitration proceeding is the place to raise any
objections to the arbitration provision or agreement's validity. In “Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. vs. Pink City Midway Petroleums” 11, the S.C reached this conclusion
(2003).
10
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26, Act of parliament, 1996 (India)
11
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs M/S. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, AIR 2003 SC 5156
4.2 Section 45 of Arbitration Act & 2019 Amendment
A court may order parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. Despite of whatever
stated in Part I CPC, “when seized of an action in a matter in which the parties have made an
agreement referred to in section 44 shall, at the request of one of the parties or any person
claiming through or under him, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the said
agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed”12.
“To be consistent with Section 8, Section 45 [Power of Judicial Authority to Refer Parties to
Arbitration] has been revised to state that the Judicial Authority shall refer the Parties to
Arbitration unless it prima facie finds that the Agreement is null, void, inoperative, or
incapable of being performed”13.
The phrase "unless it discovers" has been replaced with the phrase "unless it prima facie
finds" in section 45 of the main Act.
4.3 Difference B/W Section 8 Arbitration Act And 89 CPC
Disputes in India can be resolved in a number of ways. The Alternative Dispute Resolution
options are outlined and formalised in Section 89 of the Civil Process Law and are one such
method. Arbitration, Conciliation, and Mediation are all forms of alternative dispute
resolution. Arbitration & conciliation Act will be applicable to the extent that a dispute has
been submitted for arbitration or conciliation, and the procedures of such a case for
arbitration & conciliation shall be deemed to have been handled in conformity with the
requirements of the 1996 Act. In accordance with Section 8 of the Act of 1996, the Court
may order the parties to submit to arbitration. This, however, is contingent upon their being
an existing arbitration agreement between the parties.
The arbitration & conciliation Act & Sec. 89 of the CPC differ in that former requires parties
to agree to use arbitration if they want to resolve their dispute, while the latter requires the
court to give them the option of using arbitration or another alternative dispute resolution
method. As Section 89 stands on its own, it cannot be used to interpret Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in the presence of an arbitration agreement
12
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26, Act of parliament, 1996 (India)
13
Ibid
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
“Malimath Committee Report & Law Commission Reports”14
Settlement outside of the court system is an effective way to avoid the judicial backlog that
results from a large accumulation of cases, several appeals, procedural restraints, &
adversarial system. Similarly, 129th Law Commission as well as Malimath Committee both
highlighted the same issue.
“While the Malimath Committee suggested making it essential for courts to send conflicts for
resolution through other measures rather than litigation/trials, the Law Commission's 129th
Report argued for the necessity for peaceful settlement of disagreements between parties”.
“With certain caveats, the 238th Law Commission Report argued for the same modifications
that were detailed in the Afcons case and urged a reorganisation of the relevant Section along
the lines established by the Supreme Court”15.
As has been shown throughout this article, the Section has several quirks that hinder its
ability to do its job and provide justice to the people. The 238thLaw Commission report's
suggestions get down to the meat of the problem, and the alterations it recommends are
necessary. Lack of common legal knowledge contributes greatly to the provision's
ineffectiveness, in addition to any inherent flaws in the law itself. Citizens continue to go to
trial in the hopes of winning a higher reward from the Court, despite the fact that other ways
are significantly less expensive and take much less time. In light of the lower transaction
costs associated with the alternative forums provided for in Section 89, it is important to raise
awareness of these options. Hence, the intent of the provision under Section 89 is correct, but
it is rendered ineffective by technicalities of the law, drafting errors, and a general lack of
knowledge among the general public.
14
ipleaders,https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-89-cpc/ (Last visited on 13th March,2023)
15
ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-89-cpc/ (Last visited on 13th March,2023)
Thus, to mention very precisely, I would like to put forth herein after mentioned
suggestions to make the provision effective:
1. Provision should be amended to make it properly worded.
2. Courts should be released from the requirement of formulation of terms of settlement.
3. Proper procedure for refernce to ADR methods and for return back to court, in case of
failure should be laid down.
4. Court should respect parties autonomy of selecting the remedies available.
BIBLOGRAPHY
ONLINE SOURCES
ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-89-cpc/ (Last visited on 13th March,2023)
ijlmh, https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/effectivenessofsection89ofcodeofcivilprocedure/
(Last visited on 13th March,2023)
lawctopus, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/alternate-dispute-resolution-code-
civil-procedure (Last visited on 13th March,2023)
indiankanoon,https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%2089 (Last visited
on 13th March,2023)
ACTS
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Act of parliament, 1908 (India)
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, No. 26, Act of parliament, 1996 (India)
BOOKS
Avtar Singh, Law of Arbitration and Conciliation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Systems 58 (EBC 2019)
C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 With New Chapter On
Commercial Courts (EBC 2014)
