Cases Suitable for ADR

Afcon Infra Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction, http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1875345/ 2010 (8) SCC 24

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. 

Advocates Act - suspension of enrollment

Upon taking up employment and upon his request to Bar Council, what is suspended is not enrollment with the Bar Council  but only his right to practise as advocate.  AIR 2010 Ker 170

consumer - unfair practice

Non-paymet of interest on security deposit or payment at lesser rate than prescribed by Electricity Regulatory Commission amounts to unfair practice,  AIR 2010 P&H 173

Implied exclusion of Part I

 Where both the seat of arbitration is abroad and the law governing the contract is foreign, an implied exclusion of Part I can be presumed according to the dicta of the Delhi and Bombay High Court (Max India Ltd. v. General Binding Corporation (2009) 3 Arb LR 162 (DEL) (DB) , DGS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Realogy Corporation MANU/DE/2115/2009 and Frontier Drilling A.S. v. Jagson Internatural Ltd  (2003) 3 Arb. LR 548). The Delhi and Bombay High Courts’ views work on the presumption that where the proper law of contract is foreign and seat is abroad, the proper law of arbitration agreement can reasonably be presumed to be foreign

But see:  National Aluminium Company Limited v. GERALD Metals 2004(2)ARB LR 382 (AP).

Merely specifying the seat of the arbitration to be foreign without specifying the proper law of contract does not amount to an implied exclusion of Part I. (Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.: 2002 (4) SCC 105)

Merely specifying the proper law of contract to be foreign without specifying the seat of arbitration or proper law of arbitration does not amount to an implied exclusion of Part I. (Indtel Technical Services Private Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd.: 2008 (10) SCC 308  and Citation Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corporation: 2009 (7) SCC 220


Overall See:  Dozco India P. Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.:  MANU/SC/0812/2010 

Joint Venture / Oppression & Mismanagement

CG Holdings P. Ltd v. Cheran Enterprises P. Ltd., 2010 159 Comp Cas 266 (CLB - Chennai)

Petition for relief on the ground of oppression and mismanagement arising out of JV Agreement to be decided by civil court and not by CLB. Sangramsinh Gaekwad v. Shantadevi Gaekwad, 2005 123 Comp Cas 566 (SC).

Appeal - Impleadment

Nagarjuna Finance Ltd v. RBI, 2010 159 Comp Cas 249 (AP).

Party not a part of proceedings before the CLB cannot be impleaded as a party in Appeal. 

Cheque Dishonour and Scheme of Arrangement

Offence of Dishonour of Cheques is not compounded by passing of scheme of arrangement with said creditors. JIK Industries Ltd. v. Sunil Ranchorlal Bajaj, 2010 159 Comp Cas 485 (Bom)

Cheque Bounce - Liability of Directors

1. There is a presumption under law that a cheque is isssued in discharge of a debt or liability and this presumption has to be rebutted by the person issuing a cheque. 

2. Law enjoins responsibility of running a company on all the directors collectively and if a director takes the stand that he has no responsibility, the onus to rebut legal presumption is on him. 

3. When the has made BoD responsible for the conduct of the business as a body of the company, each and every Director has to be considered in-charge of responsibility for conduct of the business and can be summoned by the court.

Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd v. Destination of the World (Subcontinent) Pvt Ltd., 2010 7 Taxmann.com 64 (Delhi)

Legal Professional Privilege & In house counsels

applies to in house counsels, Vijay Metal Works, AIR 1982 Bom 6.

Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1996 - waiver of arbitration clause

FCI v. Yadav Engieer & Contractor, (1982) 2 SCC 499: "taking any other steps in the proceeding must be confined to taking steps in the proceedings for resolution of the substantial dispute in the suit..." Appearing at interim stage does not mean waiver of arbitration clause. 


Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Verma Transport Co. (2006) 7 SCC 275.