Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 690

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., S.A. BOBDE, DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. - Appellants
Versus
Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 10866-10867 of 2010 with C.A. No. 4768-4771 of 2011, C.A. No. 2636 of 2011, C.A. No. 821 of 2011, C.A. No. 4739 of 2011, C.A. No. 4905-4908 of 2011, C.A. No. 2215 of 2011, C.A. No. 4740 of 2011, C.A. No. 2894 of 2011, C.A. No. 6965 of 2011, C.A. No. 4192 of 2011, C.A. No. 5498 of 2011, C.A. No. 7226 of 2011, C.A. No. 8096 of 2011, Diary No(s). 22744 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 294 of 2018, W.P. (C) No.105 of 2016, W.P. No.151 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv., Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, Mr. Shahid Nadeem Ansari, Adv., Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Adv., Ms. Qurratulain, Adv., Ms. Tanya Shree, Adv., Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Adv., Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv., Ms. Hamsini Shankar, Adv., Mr. Mohammad Abdullah, Adv., Ms. Ratna Appnender, Adv., Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Siddhi Padia, Adv., Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Adv., Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. (AOR), Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Adv., Ms. Qurratulain, Adv., Ms. Tanya Shree, Adv., Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Adv., Mr. Mohammad Abdullah, Adv., Ms. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Mr. Yash Mishra, Adv., Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv., Ms. Indira Bhakhar, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv., Mr. Vineet Pandey, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR, Mr. V.N. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar, Adv., Ms. Nanita Sharma, Adv., Ms. Dhriti Singh, Adv., Mr. Sachin Pahwa, Adv., Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Adv., Mr. Bajrang Lal Jat, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Ainul Ansari, Adv., Mr. Sunil Khatwani, Adv., Mr. Sujit Kumar, Adv., Ms. Garima Shukla, Adv., Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Harsh Vaidyanathan, Adv., Ms. Babita Yadav, Adv., Mr. P.K. Singh, Adv., Ms. Aditi, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv., Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR, Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv., Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv., Ms. Sarah Haque, Adv., Mr. Anoop Bose, Adv., Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR, Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR, Ms. Vaishnani Ranjana, Adv., Mr. K.K.L. Gautam, Adv., Mr. Arundhati Chakrobarty, Adv., Mr. Raju Sankar, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv., Mr. R.R. Bag, Adv., Mr. Thomas Franklin Caezer, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, Mr. S. Manoj Selvaraj, Adv., Ms. J. Vijetha, Adv., Mr. K.M. Vignesh Ram, Adv., Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Adv., Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv., Mr. Aslam Khan, Adv., Mr. C. Solomon, Adv., Mr. R. Naveen Raj, Adv., Mr. A. Joseph Jerry, Adv., Ms. M.K. Aswathi, Adv., Ms. K. Lakshmi, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR. Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. Vishwanath B. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv., Ms. Radni V. Gadnis, Adv., Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., AOR, Petitioner-in-person, Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. M.C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR, Mr. Yash Mishra, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Adv., Mr. Shridhar Pottaraju, Adv., Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv., Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Pathak, Adv., Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv., Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv., Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv., Mr. Tushar Thareja, Adv., Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv., Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv., Ms. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Mr. Yash Mishra, Adv., Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv., Ms. Indira Bhakhar, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv., Mr. Vineet Pandey, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv., Ms. Devika Gulati, Adv., Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv., Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Sr. Adv., AG, UP, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, AAG, UP, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, UP, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, AAG, UP, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv., Ms. Stuti Chopra, Adv., Ms. Manvi Dikshit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv., Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Mr. R.N. Venjrani, Sr. Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv., Mr. A.S. Syyed, Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR, Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv., Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv., Mr. Shbhendu Anand, Adv., Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv., Mr. R.K. Rajvanshi, Adv., Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raunak Parekh, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Wadhwa, Adv., Mr. M.C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR, Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv., Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv., Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Adv., Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek, Adv., Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv., Mr. Swatantra Rai, Adv., Mr. Neeraj, Adv., Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv., Mr. B.K. Satija, AOR, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv., Ms. Shweta Bharti, Adv., Mr. Shantanu, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Piyusha Kumari, Adv., Mr. Awadesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv., Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Gunratan Pandey, Adv., Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Ms. Vidyottamma, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Sai Deepak, Adv., Mr. Ravindra Lokhande, Adv., Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Harshit Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR, Mr. Harsh Vaidyanathan, Adv., Ms. Babita Yadav, Adv., Mr. P.K. Singh, Adv., Ms. Aditi, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv., Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Babul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv., Mr. B.K. Satija, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv., Mrs. Veena Bansal, Adv., Ms. Nanita Sharma, Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Mr. Bajrang Lal Jat, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. Vipin Saxena, Adv., Mr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. (AOR), Mr. K.K. Khurana, Adv., Mr. M.K. Pandey, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Parashar, Adv., Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR, Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. Vishwanath B. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. Ashok Shrivastava, Adv., Ms. Radni V. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv., Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Nisarg Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Puneet Sheoran, Adv., Ms. Rita Gupta, Adv., Ms. Deepshika Bharati, Adv., Mr. Umesh Babu Chaurasiya, Adv., Mr. Sujit Kumar, Adv., Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR, Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Ms. Christi Jain, AOR, Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., AOR, Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR, Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, AOR, Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR.

The main legal point established is the court's authority to refer disputes to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the importance of conducting mediation proceedings with utmost confidentiality and in camera.

Headnote:
Mediation - Dispute Resolution - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 89, Order I rule 8, Order XXIII rule 3-B
Fact of the Case:

The court considered whether the dispute between the parties should be referred to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that despite the lack of consensus between the parties, an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.
Issues: The court considered the nature of the dispute and addressed the contention raised by some parties regarding the applicability of Order I rule 8 and Order XXIII rule 3-B of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no legal impediment to making a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the dispute, and left open the decision on the applicability of the CPC provisions in the event of a settlement/compromise in the mediation proceedings.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appointment of a panel of mediators and directed that the mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality, held in camera, and completed within a specified period.

ORDER :

1. In our previous order dated 26th February, 2019 we have recorded that the dispute raised in the present cases (i.e. appeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions) should be attempted to be resolved by mediation to be held during the period of eight weeks that we had allowed to the parties to take steps to make the cases ready for hearing. The aforesaid part of the order dated 26th February, 2019 is extracted below :

“We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a Court appointed and Court monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases. This, we have done keeping in mind that the period of eight weeks that we have allowed to the parties to go through the translations of the oral and documentary evidence could be effectively utilized to try and resolve the issues in the manner indicated above. In doing so, we have also kept in mind the mandate of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties on the issue as to whether the dispute between the parties should be referred to mediation by invoking Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”)

3. We have considered the nature of the dispute arising. Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.

4. The contention raised by some of the contesting parties that the instant dispute(s) ought not to be referred to mediation on the strength of Order I rule 8 (sub-rule 2, 3 and 4) of the CPC and Order XXIII rule 3-B of the CPC does not strictly arise for consideration at this stage when we are considering whether dispute(s) should be referred to mediation or not.

5. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of Order 1 rule 8 CPC and Order XXIII rule 3-B are reproduced herein below:

“Order I
Parties to suits
……..
8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest
(1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,--
(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested;
(b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.
(2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.
(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit.
(4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2).
(5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit.
(6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 690

The main legal point established is the court's authority to refer disputes to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the importance of conducting mediation proceedings with utmost confidentiality and in camera.

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009