SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 970

Y.K.SABHARWAL, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, TARUN CHATTERJEE
Salem Advocate Bar Association, T. N. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Yes, this decision authorizes trial courts to impose costs for non-appearance of a party in mediation.

  • Under the model Civil Procedure Mediation Rules (Part II, Rule 13), parties must attend mediation sessions personally, by counsel, or power of attorney holder. If a party fails to attend without sufficient reason, the mediator or other parties may apply to the court where the suit is filed. The court may then issue directions and, upon finding default, impose costs on the defaulting party. Parties not resident in India may be represented. (!) (!)

  • These rules form part of the model Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules finalized by the Committee and endorsed in the judgment for adoption by High Courts under Sections 89, 121-131 CPC and Order X Rules 1A-1C. Trial courts, upon reference under Section 89, enforce these procedures, including cost imposition for non-attendance to ensure good faith participation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

  • The overarching intent is expeditious justice via ADR/mediation, with courts empowered to penalize delays or non-cooperation through costs, aligning with general provisions for realistic costs under Sections 35, 35B (e.g., for adjournments or non-compliance). High Courts must frame/implement these rules expeditiously. (!) (!) (!) (!)


Judgment

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.—The challenge made to the constitutional validity of amend­ments made to the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) by Amend­ment Acts of 1999 and 2002 was rejected by this Court {Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India [(2003) 1 SCC 49]}, but it was noticed in the judgment that modalities have to be formulated for the manner in which Section 89 of the Code and, for that matter, the other provisions which have been introduced by way of amendments, may have to be operated. For this purpose, a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court and Chairman, Law Commission of India (Justice M. Jagannadha Rao) was constituted so as to ensure that the amendments become effective and result in quicker dispensation of justice. It was further observed that the Committee may consider devising a model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be followed while taking recourse to the Alternate Disputes Resolution (ADR) referred to in Section 89. It was also observed that the model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High Courts concerned for giving effect to Section 89(2)(














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top