- (1.) The proceedings in these petitions as indeed the proceedings in the Bombay High Court (out of which the present petitions have arisen) indicate a clear need for encouraging an amicable settlement process, preferably through mediation, in which the services of a mediator well-versed in the art, science and technique of mediation may be taken advantage of. The alternative, of course, is protracted litigation which may not be the best alternative for the contesting parties or for a society that requires expeditious justice delivery.
(2.) In his Foreword written on 12th April, 2011 to the first edition of "Mediation Practice & Law - The path to successful dispute resolution" written by Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate and Mediator, Mr. Fali S. Nariman, a Senior Advocate of this Court and a respected jurist, writes: "[T]he same subject matter of disputation between two parties can be dealt with in two different ways, not necessarily exclusive: first, by attempting to resolve a dispute in such a way that the parties involved win as much as possible and lose as little as possible through the intervention of a third party steeped in the techniques of mediation; and second, (failing this) the dispute would be left to be resolved by each party presenting its case before a disinterested third party with an expectation of a binding decision on the merits of the case: a win-all lose-all, final determination". The second alternative may not be the best alternative, as already mentioned by us.
(3.) The decision rendered by the High Court which is under challenge before us states that efforts were made to have the disputes between the contesting parties settled but it is clear that no institutional mechanism was invited to assist in the settlement process. The proceedings before us also indicate that several efforts were made to encourage the contesting parties to arrive at a settlement, and at one point of time the parties did reach an interim arrangement but that could not fructify into a final settlement only because of the absence of an intervention through an institutional mechanism. Appreciating this, this Court has consistently encouraged the settlement of disputes through an institutionalized alternative dispute resolution mechanism and there are at least three significant decisions rendered by this Court on the subject. They are: (i) Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344 (ii) Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., 2010 8 SCC 24 (iii) K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa., 2013 5 SCC 226;