Section 86: 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—
(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or
(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.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
1. Purpose of Section 89 of the Code
Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49:
9. 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 89 refers to different Acts in relation to arbitration, conciliation or settlement through Lok Adalat, but with regard to mediation Section 89(2)(d) provides that the parties shall follow the procedure as may be prescribed. Section 89(2)(d), therefore, contemplates appropriate rules being framed with regard to mediation.
10. In certain countries of the world where ADR has been successful to the extent that over 90 per cent of the cases are settled out of court, there is a requirement that the parties to the suit must indicate the form of ADR which they would like to resort to during the pendency of the trial of the suit. 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.
2. The manner in which a matter can be referred to ADR under this section
Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2018) 4 SCC 793 :
35. After pointing out the disputed claims of additional work (Ext. P-59) and on the oral consent of the counsel for the appellant, the High Court has referred the parties to arbitration appointing Justice K.A. Nayar as the arbitrator. Arbitrator/Tribunal is a creature of the contract between the parties. There was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The question falling for consideration is whether the High Court was right in referring the parties to arbitration on the oral consent given by the counsel without written instruction from the party.
49.4. When there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, without a joint memo or a joint application of the parties, the High Court ought not to have referred the parties to arbitration. Hence, the award dated 29-10-2012 passed by the arbitrator Justice K.A. Nayar is set aside and Arbitration Appeal No. Z-47 of 2013 filed by the appellant Board pending before the High Court of Kerala is allowed;