Abstract

The research paper examines the provision of alternative dispute settlement and its procedural characteristics, as provided by Section 89 of the CPC, 1908, by the 1999 Amendment Act. The amendment aimed to implement alternative dispute resolution in Indian legal systems in response to case backlogs and judicial inefficiency. The study examines the provision in question and discusses its flaws, while also taking into account the growing relevance of alternative dispute resolution procedures in worldwide legal systems and their impact on Indian legal systems. The inconsistencies found within the clause include ambiguity in the definition of ways of dispute resolution, reimbursement of money even in circumstances where there is no settlement, and the putting of an excessive burden on courts. Furthermore, the paper addresses the issue of public lack of awareness. The sources used include secondary ones, such as journal articles, committee reports, etc. The paper also considers the recommendations made by the 238th Law Commission Report, which emphasizes the need to redefine the provisions in order to remove ambiguity, create provisions to ensure that fees are not refunded if there is no settlement, and record the opinions of courts on ADR settlement before proceeding to trial. Furthermore, recommendations submitted include raising public knowledge in order to avoid inefficiencies in systems and further the aims of the amendment and the law in issue.

Keywords