Adr Project.docx

Alternate Dispute Resolution under Section 89 of the CPC - A Critical Analysis (Project towards partial fulfilment of the assessment in the subject of Law of Arbitration and ADR)

Submitted By:

Submitted To:

Nitish Kaushik

Ms. Aakanksha Kumar

Roll No. 776

Assistant Professor

U.G.- IX Semester

Faculty of Law

B.B.A. (Hons.), L.L.B. (Hons.) Final Word Count - 4549

National Law University, Jodhpur Summer Session (July - November 2014)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A major project like this is never the work of anyone alone. The contributions of many different people, in their different ways, have made this possible. It gives me great satisfaction to prepare this project. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and personal regards to Ms. Aakanksha Kumar for inspiring and guiding me during the course of this project work. Without her valuable guidance and support the completion of the project would not have been possible. I would like to thank the library staff for working long hours to facilitate me with required material going a long way in quenching my thirst for education. I am also thankful to my parents who continuously encouraged and inspired me for my project work. Efforts have been made to avoid errors but in spite of it some errors might have crept in inadvertently. Above all, I would like to thank the Almighty without whose blessings the completion of this project would not have been possible.

Nitish Kaushik

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5 OBJECT OF SECTION 89 ........................................................................................................ 7 SCOPE OF SECTION 89 .......................................................................................................... 7 DRAFTING ERRORS IN SECTION 89- AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE CASE ................. 10 ALTERNATIVE FORUMS- AN INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 12 Arbitration ............................................................................................................................ 12 Conciliation .......................................................................................................................... 12 Lok Adalat ........................................................................................................................... 12 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAW COMMISSION REPORT ........................... 13 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 16

3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The project seeks to critically analyse the Alternate Dispute Resolution under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A desired project is impossible without a good and consistent research work, which has to be done over a long period of time. I found non-empirical research methodology as the best research methodology, which can be used for the available text material for comparison. I also had used World Wide Web as a non-empirical research method to accomplish this project with possible wisdom. I have used explanatory and descriptive research to elaborate various forms of legal interpretations. To make the work more comprehensive and appreciable, the material gathered from the research work has to be analyzed and appreciated in the researchers’ own way, so that the work gives a clear idea form the books and world wide web to a layman.

4

INTRODUCTION By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999, section 89 had been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it became effective from 01-07-2002. Section 89 of the CPC reads as under: 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 – a) arbitration; b) conciliation; c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or d) mediation (2) Where a dispute has been referred- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 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 subsection (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 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 Authorities Act, 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.” The related provisions which were incorporated by the same amendment Act are those contained in Rules 1A, 1B and 1C of Order X, CPC, which are extracted hereunder: (1A) Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.—After recording the admissions and denials, the court shall direct the parties to suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section (1) of section 89. On the option of the

5

parties, the court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties.” (1B) Appearance before the conciliatory forum or authority.– where a suit is referred under rule 1A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit.” (1C) Appearance before the Court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation.Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the forum or authority to whom the matter has been referred is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, then it shall refer the matter again to the court and direct the parties to appear before the court on the date fixed by it.”

Original Section 89 of the Code was repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Schedule III. Section 89 was reinserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 interalia providing for settlement of dispute outside the Court. This provision was inserted based on the acceptance of Justice Malimath Committee report, wherein the said Committee had emphasized for providing a legal sanction to such machinery for resolution of disputes and resort thereto in order to reduce and control the inflow of commercial transaction in regular civil courts. Justice Malimath Committee was also of the view that, the resolution of dispute be made obligatory on the part of the court, to resolve for the settlement of the disputes and the Committee agreeing with the Law Commission recommended to provide for settlement of disputes outside the court at any stage of the proceedings by means of judicial settlement, arbitration, conciliation, mediation or through Lok Adalat and it is only after the party fails to get the dispute settled through any one of the alternative dispute resolution method, the suit shall proceed further in the court in which it was filed. The object, for making it obligatory on the part of the Court to refer the matter to the alternative dispute resolution methods, is to provide early disposal of the disputes, avoiding long waiting for justice for years and further avoiding judicial wrangles and multiplicity of appeals/revisions and also to reduce the burden on the judiciary of huge areas of cases pending at different levels of Courts. The result of this recommendation, Section 89 was inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 The reintroduction of Section 89 is a pointer to the fact that the object of the legislature is to encourage alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.2

1 2

State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto, 2007 (2) BLJR 2724. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2010) 4 CompLJ 345 (Mad).

6

OBJECT OF SECTION 89 The object behind Section 89 is to encourage the parties to arrive at settlement and if that object is sought to be achieved by means of referring the matter to any of the four methods mentioned in Section 89, then even the settlement arrived at the earliest stage before the Court would also be one of the method provided under Section 89 Sub-section (1).3 The present

system

of

dispute

resolution

certainly

suffers

from

four

major

inadequacies/deficiencies. Of all the inadequacies the worst and the most objectionable is the law’s delays. Expeditious justice remains only a dream. Even a child in India knows and repeats the adage “justice delayed is justice denied”. Alternative dispute resolution modes have been stipulated and identified to get over these four inadequacies in our present system. The search for the ideal dispute resolution methodology continues. But Section 89 certainly emphasizes and addresses the first of these four inadequacies, namely elimination of delay. An anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs which led to the enactment of Section 89 must convey unmistakably that emphasis was made on the ability of ADR mechanisms to render expeditious justice and thus help to take away the burden on the over burdened system.4 SCOPE OF SECTION 89 Section 89, its first part uses the word “shall” when it stipulates that “the Court shall formulate the terms of the settlement”. The use of the word “may” in later part of Section 89 only relates to the aspect of reformulating the terms of a possible settlement. The intention of the legislature behind enacting Section 89 is that where it appears to the Court that there exists element of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, they, at the instance of the court, shall be made to apply their mind so as to opt for one or the other of the four ADR methods mentioned in the Section and if the parties do not agree, the Court shall refer them to one or other of the said modes. Section 89 uses both the word “shall” and “may” whereas Order X, Rule 1A uses the word “shall” but on harmonious reading of these provisions it becomes clear that the use of the word “may” in Section 89 only governs the aspect of reformulation of the terms of a possible settlement and its reference to one of the ADR methods. There is no conflict, it is evident that what is referred to one of the ADR modes is

3 4

A. Sreeramaiah v. The South Indian Bank Ltd., 2007 (1) KarLJ 67. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction P. Ltd. & Ors., 2007 (1) KLJ 333.

7

the dispute which is summarized in the terms of settlement formulated or reformulated in terms of Section 89.5 A doubt has been expressed in relation to clause (d) of Section 89 (2) of the Code on the question as to finalisation of the terms of the compromise. The question is whether the term of the compromise is to be finalised by or before the mediator or by or before the court. It is evident that all the four alternatives, namely Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat and mediation are meant to be the action of persons or institution outside the Court and not before the Court. Order X, Rule 1C speaks of the “Conciliation forum” referring back the dispute to the Court. In fact the court is not involved in actual mediation/conciliation. Clause (d) of Section 89(2) only means that when mediation succeeds and parties agree to the term of the settlement, the mediator will report to the court and the court, after giving notice and hearing the parties, “effect” the compromise and pass a decree in accordance with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. Further, in this view, there is no question of the Court which refers the matter to mediation/conciliation being debarred from hearing the matter where settlement is not arrived at. The Judge who makes the reference only considers the limited question as to whether there are reasonable grounds to expect that there will be settlement and on that ground he cannot be treated to be disqualified to try the suit afterwards if no settlement is arrived at between the parties.6 It should not be overlooked that even though Section 89 mandates Courts to refer pending suits to any of the several alternative dispute resolution processes mentioned therein, there cannot be a reference to arbitration even under Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure, unless there is a mutual consent of all parties, for such reference. 7 A compromise cannot be onesided. If a Defendant offers to compromise the suit and the Plaintiff outright rejects the offer, no compromise can be reached; in such a situation if the trial Court declines to delay disposal of the suit by resorting to efforts of compromise, it cannot be said to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 89.8 The settlement arrived at between the parties pursuant to proceedings under Section 89 have to be respected and implemented. Objections against settlements have to be dealt with heavy hands. If amicable settlements are discarded and rejected on flimsy pleas, the parties would 5

Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353. Ibid. 7 Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719. 8 West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Shanti Conductors Private Ltd., AIR 2004 Gau 70. 6

8

be wary of entering into negotiated settlements and making payments there under as a shrewd party after entering into a negotiated settlement, may pocket the amount received under it and thereafter, challenge the settlement and reagitate the dispute causing immeasurable loss and harassment to the party making payment there under. This tendency has to be checked and such litigants discouraged by the Courts. It would be in consonance with public policy of India.9 Section 89, Civil Procedure Code cannot be resorted to for interpreting Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as it stands on a different footing and it would be applicable even in cases where there is no arbitration agreement for referring the dispute for arbitration.10 Lok Adalat is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It is the duty of court to ensure that parties have recourse to the Alternative Dispute Resolution processes and to encourage litigants to settle their disputes in an amicable manner. But there should be no pressure, force coercion or treat to the litigants to settle disputes against their wishes. Judges also require some training in selecting and referring cases to Lok Adalats or other ADR processes. Mechanical reference to unsuited mode of ADR process may well be counterproductive. A plaintiff who comes to court alleging unlawful encroachment by a neighbour may well ask what kind of settlement he should have with an encroacher in a Lok Adalat. He cannot obviously be asked to sacrifice a part of his land for purposes of amicable settlement thereby perpetuating the illegality of an encroachment. A plaintiff alleging fraud and forgery of documents against a defendant may well ask what settlement he can have with a fraudster or forger through ADR process as any settlement may mean yielding to or accepting fraud or forgery.11 Court fees would be refunded upon the recording of amicable settlement under Section 89 of the Code. The model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High Court concerned.

9

Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gasers Ltd., 2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 534. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, AIR 2003 SC 2252. 11 B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan, (2009) 2 SCC 198. 10

9

DRAFTING ERRORS IN SECTION 89- AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE CASE The first and foremost incongruity, which has also been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd.12, is related to subsection (1) of section 89, especially the words “shall formulate the terms of settlement”. The sub-section requires the court to formulate the terms of settlement and place them before the parties “for their observations” and then reformulate the terms of a possible settlement in the light of their observations. A literal reading further shows that on such reformulation, the court shall have to refer the dispute for one of the five ADR methods, which is really meaningless. The language of section 73(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been borrowed and practically transplanted into section 89 without appreciating the intended scope and purpose of section 89. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the formulation and reformulation of the terms of settlement by the court is wholly out of place at the stage of preADR reference. The Supreme Court extracted section 73(1) of the AC Act and section 89 of the CPC to highlight the absurdity and commented that if the reference is to be made to arbitration, the terms of settlement formulated by the court will be of no use, as what is referred to arbitration is the dispute and not the terms of settlement; and the arbitrator will adjudicate upon the dispute

and

give

his

decision

by

way

of

award.

If

the

reference

is

to

conciliation/mediation/Lok Adalat, then drawing up the terms of the settlement or reformulating them is the job of the conciliator or the mediator or the Lok Adalat, after going through the entire process of conciliation/mediation. Thus, the terms of settlement drawn up by the court will be totally useless in any subsequent ADR process. Why then the courts should be burdened with the onerous and virtually impossible, but redundant, task of formulating the terms of settlement at pre-reference stage? In this context, it may be mentioned that the Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. UOI13 had equated the words “terms of settlement” to “summary of disputes” in an apparent attempt to resolve the anomaly. Section 89 has to be read with Rule 1-A of Order 10 which requires the court to direct the parties to opt for any of the five modes of alternative dispute resolution processes and on their option refer the matter. The said Rule does not require the court to either formulate the terms 12

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24.

13

Supra note 5.

10

of settlement or make available such terms of settlement to the parties to reformulate the terms of possible settlement after receiving the observations of the parties. Therefore, the only practical way of reading Section 89 and Order 10 Rule 1-A is that after the pleadings are complete and after seeking admissions/denials wherever required, and before framing issues, the Court will have recourse to Section 89 of the Code. Such recourse requires the court to consider and record the nature of the dispute, inform the parties about five options available and take note of their preferences and then refer them to one of the alternative dispute resolution processes. Secondly, the Supreme Court very rightly exposed the other obvious drafting error in mixing up the terms “judicial settlement” and “mediation”. The Supreme Court pointed out that in order to give proper meaning to section 89, the said two words should be interchanged. “Mediation” should find place in clause (c) of section 89 (2) and “judicial settlement” should be transferred to clause (d) in place of “mediation”. Otherwise, as succinctly pointed out by the apex Court, the anomaly would persist. This anomaly has been explained in the following words: “The first anomaly is the mixing up of the definitions of “mediation” and judicial settlement” under clauses (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of Section 89 of the Code. Clause (c) says that for “judicial settlement”, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person who shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat. Clause (d) provides that where the reference is to “mediation”, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties by following such procedure as may be prescribed. It makes no sense to call a compromise effected by a court, as “mediation”, as is done in clause (d). Nor does it make any sense to describe a reference made by a court to a suitable institution or person for arriving at a settlement as “judicial settlement”, as is done in clause (c).” In tune with the above discussion, the Supreme Court propounded the amendments in the following terms: “In view of the foregoing, it has to be concluded that proper interpretation of Section 89 of the Code requires two changes from a plain and literal reading of the court. Firstly, it is not necessary for the court, before referring the parties to an ADR process, to formulate or reformulate the terms of a possible settlement. It is sufficient if the court merely describes the nature of dispute (in a sentence or two) and makes the reference. Secondly, the definitions of “judicial settlement” and “mediation” in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 89(2) shall have to be interchanged to correct the draftsman’s error. Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 89(2) of the Code will read as under when the two terms are interchanged: (c) for “mediation”, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such 11

institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities 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 “judicial settlement”, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.” ALTERNATIVE FORUMS- AN INTRODUCTION Arbitration The whole of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies when the matter is referred to arbitration or conciliation by the trial court. The constitution of the arbitral tribunal and its procedure will be in accordance with that Act. Moreover, Section 19 of the Act provides that the Arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the CPC 1908 or the Evidence Act, 1872. Conciliation Part I and II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deal with the law and procedure governing settlement of disputes through arbitration. Part III relates to conciliation which is an alternative mechanism for settlement of disputes an alternative to arbitration and court litigation. Settlement of disputes- Section 65 empowers the appointed conciliator to request the parties to him brief particulars of the disputes. No elaborate ‘pleadings’ are required. In order to have a wider and proper perception of the matter, they may call from each party for further or additional information specifying his position and the facts and grounds in support thereof together with the requisite documents or other evidence. Section 66 is on the same lines as Section 19(1) relating to the conduct of arbitration proceedings. A conciliator is not bound by the procedure laid down in the CPC or the Evidence Act. Lok Adalat The procedural provisions in respect of disputes referred to Lok Adalat are contained in sections 19 to 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 under Section 22 relating to powers of Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat has been conferred with the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC, 1908 in respect of the matters specified therein.

12

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAW COMMISSION REPORT The Commission recommends the following amendments to the relevant provisions of CPC dealing with alternative dispute resolution.14 The following shall be substituted in the place of existing section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 89: Settlement of disputes outside the court - 1) Where it appears to the court, having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in the suit or other proceeding that the dispute is fit to be settled by one of the non-adjudicatory alternative dispute resolution processes, namely, conciliation, judicial-settlement, settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation the court shall, preferably before framing the issues, record its opinion and direct the parties to attempt the resolution of dispute through one of the said processes which the parties prefer or the court determines. 2) Where the parties prefer conciliation, they shall furnish to the court the name or names of the conciliators and on obtaining his or their consent, the court may specify a time-limit for the completion of conciliation. Thereupon, the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as far as may be, shall apply and to this effect, the court shall inform the parties. A copy of the settlement agreement reached between the parties shall be sent to the court concerned. In the absence of a settlement, the conciliator shall send a brief report on the process of conciliation and the outcome thereof. 3) Where the dispute has been referred:a) for judicial-settlement, the Judicial Officer shall endeavour to effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed; b) to Lok Adalat, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (7) of section 20, sections 21 and 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred and the Lok Adalat shall send a copy of the award to the court concerned and in case no award is passed, send a brief report on the proceedings held and the outcome thereof; c) for mediation, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person or persons with appropriate directions such as time-limit for completion of mediation and reporting to the court.

14

Law Commission of India, Report No. 238: Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Allied Provisions, December, 2011.

13

4) On receipt of copy of the settlement agreement or the award of Lok Adalat, the court, if it finds any inadvertent mistakes or obvious errors, it shall draw the attention of the conciliator or the Lok Adalat who shall take necessary steps to rectify the agreement or award suitably with the consent of parties. 5) Without prejudice to section 8 and other allied provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court may also refer the parties to arbitration if both parties enter into an arbitration agreement or file applications seeking reference to arbitration during the pendency of a suit or other civil proceeding and in such an event, the arbitration shall be governed, as far as may be, by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The suit or other proceeding shall be deemed to have been disposed of accordingly”. The existing rule 1B of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure should be deleted. In the place of existing Rules 1-A and 1-C of Order X, the following rules shall be substituted: (1A) Direction of the court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution.- At the stage of framing issues or the first hearing of the suit, the court shall direct the parties to opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section (1) of section 89 and for this purpose may require the parties to be personally present and in case of nonattendance without substantial cause, follow the procedure for compelling the attendance of witness. The court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority or persons as may be opted by the parties or chosen by the court.” (1B) Appearance before the court consequent upon the failure of efforts of conciliation.Where a suit is referred under rule 1A and the presiding officer of conciliation forum or authority or the person to whom the matter has been referred is satisfied that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to proceed with the matter further, in view of the stand taken by the respective parties, it shall refer the case back to the court who shall direct the parties to appear before it on the date fixed and proceed with the suit.

14

CONCLUSION The foremost reason for the misinterpretation of the Section 89 of the CPC is primarily due to the drafting errors in that section which is abstractly understood by its readers. Secondly, the incorporation of the two sub-sections (i.e. Section 89 (c) (d)) has been erroneous which has in fact made it difficult even for the layman to interpret. The anomalies of Section 89 have been addressed by the judiciary in various case laws, but the section still remains unchanged by the legislature. It is a viable section which has the potential to reduce the burden of the Indian judiciary and accomplish what every justice system aims for, fair and speedy justice for all, since justice delayed is justice denied. This section addresses the need of the hour that is the requirement to reduce the load of our adversarial judicial system. ADR processes can be finally made an active part of the Justice system through this section. But this section needs to be properly formed through a thorough responsible debate by the law academicians and judicial authorities. This section needs to be looked into again by the parliament to iron out the creases and make it an effective solution to provide speedy, satisfactory justice, at an affordable cost. An anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs which led to the enactment of Section 89 must convey unmistakably that emphasis was made on the ability of ADR mechanisms to render expeditious justice and thus help to take away the burden on the over burdened system.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY Statues:  Civil Procedure Code, 1908.  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

Books:  SUDIPTO SARKAR & VR MANOHAR, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (11th ed. 2011).  ANUPAM SRIVASTAVA & MONIKA SRIVASTAVA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (3rd ed. 2010).  VINAY KUMAR GUPTA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (14th ed. 2005).

Cases: A. Sreeramaiah v. The South Indian Bank Ltd., 2007 (1) KarLJ 67. ......................................... 7 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction P. Ltd. & Ors., 2007 (1) KLJ 333. ................................................................................................................................. 7 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Consturction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24. . 10 B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan, (2009) 2 SCC 198. ...................................... 9 Double Dot Finance Limited v. Goyal MG Gasers Ltd., 2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 534. ................. 9 Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719. ....................................................... 8 Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353. ........... 8 State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto, 2007 (2) BLJR 2724. .......................................................... 6 Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, AIR 2003 SC 2252. .................................... 9 Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2010) 4 CompLJ 345 (Mad). ... 6 West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Shanti Conductors Private Ltd., AIR 2004 Gau 70. ... 8

Report:  Law Commission of India, Report No. 238: Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Allied Provisions, December, 2011.

16