CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW

AUTHOR – SHAIK RAFIUNNISA, STUDENT AT DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE, HYDERABAD

Best Citation – SHAIK RAFIUNNISA, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW, ILE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW REVIEW (ILE JADRLR), 1 (1) of 2023, Pg. 20-23, APIS – 3920 – 0046 | ISBN – 978-81-964391-3-2.

Abstract

The Alternative Dispute Resolution systems are multifaceted.  Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to a set of practices and techniques aimed at permitting the resolution of legal disputes outside the courts. It gives quick and cheap justice to the needy and aggrieved people.  It is also the object of the alternative dispute resolution system to free and chains of the procedural laws. In most of the alternative dispute resolution systems, there is no court fee.  Even if court fee is prescribed, it is very less and negligible.  It helps the poor people.  Minimizing the court’s interference is also one of the significant features of the alternative dispute resolution systems.   Equal value and recognition are accorded to the decision or award given by the most of alternative dispute resolution systems to that of civil court’s judgement/decree/order. The ADRs have multi-door opportunities.  The aggrieved party can approach any one of the suitable. After completing the inquiry and completion of the proceedings.  It is dissolved.

Primary the objects of alternative dispute resolution systems is based on the legal maxim “Interest republicae ut sit finis litium” (in the interest of the State, there should be an end to a litigation). Adoption of the alternative dispute resolution systems saves the time and expenses of the regular Courts. The intervention of the courts in arbitration proceedings shall be kept to a minimum.  This is why those who opt for arbitration rather than pleat a court people will tend to develop a sense of favoritism towards the proceedings as well.  People often find it better to approach the court at first.

There should be a limit on court intervention not only the intervention during the judicial process but also the intervention during the arbitral proceedings.  This means there must be a limited scope to challenge the arbitral award under Section 14 of Arbitration Act 1996.  And, so it was well debated and agreed that the involvement of the judiciary should be minimized to an extent.

KEY WORDS: Alternative Dispute Resolutions, Lack of awareness, Judicial Dispute Resolution, compromise, illiteracy.