Navigating Corporate Disputes Analysing ADR Mechanisms

Contents

ABSTRACT

Corporate disputes are among the common issues that a business encounters throughout its lifecycle, from formation to liquidation. Normally, these disputes are based on the unclear agreements and breach conditions of the contract, which results in governance disputes. Unlike private disputes, corporate disputes are between legal entities; hence, resolving such disputes becomes important for a smooth run of business and reputation. The paper sets out to assess ways ADR methods, including arbitration and mediation, can provide faster and more cost -effective alternatives than court litigation in the resolution of corporate and commercial cases. Drawing on the main legislative provisions and case laws, this paper explains how ADR may effectively be used to address and resolve corporate and commercial disputes in ways that better facilitate conflict management within companies. Finally, the research attracts attention to the selection of an effective strategy that should be used to strengthen business flexibility and prevent unnecessary disruptions.

KEYWORDS – Corporate Disputes, Arbitration, Mediation, Negotiation, Conflicts, ADR Mechanisms

INTRODUCTION

Corporate disputes can be an everyday issue that may hit businesses at any given stage from initial setup to financing up to eventual closure. Most corporate disputes occur due to unclear agreements, differences in interests, bad management, or breach of contract. Their problems can vary from contractual issues, antitrust issues, shareholder conflicts, labour concerns, violation of intellectual property, and cybersecurity issues.

This nature of dispute generally happens between companies themselves rather than among individuals. Whether large or small, these disputes can cause serious disturbances to the operations of the company and damage its reputation. That is why it is so crucial for companies to address these issues swiftly and effectively to keep the things running. Choosing the right channel for dispute resolution-adjudication within the conventional court proceedings or through arbitration, mediation, and negotiation-will save a company from unnecessary disruptions so that it can refocus its efforts on growth and prosperity. Companies with actual strategies to deal with disputes will be able to address their issues before they grow to be major problems in hampering businesses in this fast-moving environment. Not only a legal obligation but also an essential requirement for the smooth operation of business and staying ahead of the competition, efficient conflict resolution will be the key to long-run success. In this regard, from a purely legalistic perspective it is just not enough to select the appropriate dispute resolution method but rather also a safeguard against delay, financial loss, and damage to the reputation of the company.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The author of this research work examined the function of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, such as arbitration and mediation, in resolving business conflicts. She did this entirely through secondary research. This approach was developed by reading a range of sources: legal texts, case laws, and academic literature so that I had a comprehensive view of the current landscape.

On the basis of such judgments, I examined seminal rulings like Salem Bar Association v. Union of India and Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. Additional significant legislative frameworks, like the Companies Act of 2013 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, have enhanced the ADR system in India, were analysed for their effect on present day practice of ADR. While searching academic databases, the repositories of legislation, and official reports, I kept careful choices of sources relevant and reliable enough. Synthesis of insights of these materials was used to understand the evolution of ADR methods in comparison with litigation. This method helps demonstrate how effective ADR is in resolving corporate conflicts today and its broader consequences for the legal field.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. Navigating Corporate Turbulence: A Deep Dive into ADR as a Conflict Resolution Strategy

The development of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained significance in India in parallel with the growth of corporate operations and the amount of commercial conflicts. This change has been largely influenced by important events, especially those pertaining to Section 89 and Order X Rules 1A, 1B, and 1C of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Arbitration is increasingly being used to settle disputes pertaining to sale-purchase agreements, shareholder rights, international verdicts, and contract cancellations rather than traditional litigation. ADR techniques are commonly used in sectors including power, telecommunications, and oil & gas to resolve disputes more quickly. In an effort to cut expenses, expedite the settlement process, and preserve long-term relationships, businesses are increasingly putting ADR terms in their contracts. Organizations such as the National Institute for Dispute Resolution (NIDR) and associations like the LCIA, SIAC, and ICC have had a significant impact on how businesses manage conflicts.

Prominent corporations such as Chevron and Toyota exemplify the advantages of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), choosing mediation and arbitration over the drawn-out and costly litigation procedure. The establishment of organized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes in India has been aided by the Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016, which have improved community empowerment, reduced delays, and improved access to justice. ADR is a vital instrument for effectively resolving conflicts and cultivating favourable business relationships, particularly as more companies come to understand its benefits.

Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution

A significant portion of conflict in America involves disputes involving corporations, hospitals, universities, and other huge institutions. These situations present special chances to apply conflict avoidance, mitigation, and resolution techniques that are less frequent in one-on-one confrontations. The institutional nature of the parties engaged, however, also presents a unique set of difficulties because it influences the conflict at every turn, from the beginning to the end. ADR, or alternative dispute resolution, has been increasingly popular among organizations in recent years as a way to reduce the expenses incurred by traditional court cases. ADR procedures are enticing due to their potential for increased efficiency and cost savings. This article explores the reasons for the rise in popularity of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in corporate disputes, the kinds of disputes that occur, and their effects on society. It also examines various ADR methods, how they mesh with business legal plans, and the drawbacks they present, including power disparities, legal restrictions, and confidentiality concerns. While the empirical literature on disputes involving institutions is limited, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) seems to hold promise for more economically efficient conflict management in these situations. However, in order to guarantee that ADR continues to be a useful instrument for businesses as well as the larger legal system, concerns about equity and openness must be addressed.

Analysing the types of disputes in Corporate Governance and Role of ADR in Dispute Resolution

Corporate governance, which establishes roles and duties and ensures stakeholder balance, is essential to a company’s effective operation. Conflicts, however, can occur when developing a strategy or making decisions, which could impede the company’s advancement. ADR, particularly mediation, provides a workable resolution to these conflicts while cutting down on litigation expenses and time. This article explores the different kinds of disagreements that arise in the business world and how alternative dispute resolution (ADR) can be used to resolve them, with a special emphasis on mediation. Board member relations can be improved, conflicts can be settled through mediation, and decision-making procedures can be strengthened. Directors should resolve disputes quickly and fairly, and it is advised that they receive mediation training as part of their professional development. Although they are not frequently present during boardroom conversations, external mediators can be helpful in settling conflicts, enhancing communication, and bolstering governance. In board reviews, retreats, and strategy workshops, facilitators can support the resolution of issues before they become more serious. A third-party mediator with experience in corporate governance and conflict resolution may be required in situations where directors may be biased.

When applied in a sincere manner, mediation can greatly improve government. On the other hand, those looking to stall procedures may also abuse it. Those who take advantage of the mediation process may face sanctions from the courts in such circumstances. In general, mediation is a useful technique for enhancing corporate governance and settling internal conflicts when used properly.

Resolving Corporate Conflicts outside the Courtroom: A Study of ADR Mechanisms and the Companies Act in India

This study explores the incorporation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, namely arbitration and mediation, within the Companies Act of India. It evaluates the degree to which these techniques mesh with the current legal system, particularly with regard to the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and contrasts their efficiency with that of conventional litigation. The study emphasizes how ADR may resolve business disputes more quickly and affordably. It also tackles difficulties like enforceability problems and jurisdictional complexity, though. The paper makes various recommendations for improving the corporate legal system in India, including integrating ADR concepts into corporate governance processes, raising awareness and providing training for legal professionals and business executives, and changing the Companies Act to better encourage ADR. By addressing these issues and putting these suggestions into practice, India has the potential to promote a corporate conflict resolution process that is more accessible and effective.

Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution In Corporate And Commercial Disputes In India

The techniques of resolving disputes have advanced significantly, and traditional litigation is frequently criticized for its expense and time-consuming nature. On the other side, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques, particularly arbitration and mediation, provide a more effective and cordial means of resolving conflicts, especially in the business and corporate spheres. This article examines how alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is changing the conflict resolution environment by looking at court rulings that emphasize its benefits over traditional litigation. It focuses on arbitration and mediation, two highly regarded dispute resolution processes that can settle disputes faster. In order to demonstrate how court support has aided in the adoption of ADR techniques, the study examines a variety of publications. Even if alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is becoming more and more common, more education and research are still required to completely replace adversarial litigation and relieve the burden on court systems.

Understanding Corporate Disputes

Corporate disputes cover a wide range of conflicts, including issues related to antitrust laws, bad faith actions, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties. In addition, they cover class action lawsuits, debtor-creditor disputes, labour and employment issues, fraud and deception, and insurance claims in relation to business-related wrongdoings (torts). Conflicts pertaining to partnerships, intellectual property, patent infringement, board members, privacy, cybersecurity, and product responsibility are also frequent. Corporate disputes also include issues pertaining to trade secrets, real estate, land use, environmental litigation, restrictive agreements, securities litigation, shareholder disputes, tax problems, and unfair competition actions.

A corporate dispute occurs when there’s a conflict between a company’s board or executives and its stakeholders. It’s more serious than regular workplace disagreements or communication issues, often involving matters of money, power, or influence. Such disputes typically arise due to issues like fraud, discrimination, or misleading information. Since companies are treated as legal entities, these disputes are governed by various state and central laws.

Corporate disputes can generally be categorized into five broad areas: employment, product-related issues, environmental matters, regulatory conflicts, and commercial disputes. These conflicts frequently take the shape of contract breaches, antitrust offenses, fiduciary obligation breaches, and dishonest acts. Other common issues include shareholder disputes, product liability, cybersecurity concerns, business torts, class actions, fraud and misrepresentation, and tax-related difficulties. These issues underscore the multifaceted nature of corporate disputes, impacting various aspects of business operations and requiring effective dispute resolution mechanisms.

Resolving Disputes using ADR Mechanisms

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) involves methods for settling disputes without going to court. Common types of ADR include mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation. These approaches are typically private, more informal, and less stressful than traditional court cases. ADR often helps save time and money, making the resolution process faster. In mediation, the people involved take an active role in finding a solution, which can lead to more creative outcomes, longer-lasting agreements, higher satisfaction, and better relationships.

The Role of ADR mechanisms in Efficient Corporate Dispute Resolution
1. Arbitration

One type of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is arbitration, in which the parties select one or more impartial arbiters to assist in resolving their dispute. In corporate disputes, the arbitrator listens to both sides and delivers a binding decision, known as an arbitral award, that must be followed. Arbitration is popular in the business world due to its key features, such as being neutral, private, and flexible, making it a preferred method for resolving disputes efficiently.

The term “arbitration agreement” is defined in clause (d) of sub-section (2) as an agreement referred to in Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. Section 7 of the Act outlines what constitutes an arbitration agreement.

“7. Arbitration agreement. —

(1) In this Part, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.

(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in—

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement

is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract.”

Arbitration is similar to a court trial, with an arbitrator acting like a judge, and involving hearings, evidence, and arguments. The parties concerned, however, control the rules and select the arbitrator in a private proceeding. Arbitrators are chosen as impartial third parties to resolve disputes in arbitration. Given the flexibility of the process, the parties are free to choose to forego some of the formalities associated with court procedures. A court order has the same legal weight as an arbitrator’s decision, which is referred to as an “Award.” India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs arbitration. Arbitration is a widely used alternative to going to court for resolving corporate disputes. In this formal process, an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, who are often experts in corporate law, makes a decision on the issue. Many contracts include arbitration clauses that outline the specific rules and procedures to be followed during the process.

Key Case Laws Related to Arbitration
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd, (2011) 5 SCC 532

In Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011), the Indian Supreme Court rendered one of its most important rulings concerning the arbitrability of subject matter. In this case, the Supreme Court established three essential requirements that have to be fulfilled in order for a topic to qualify as arbitrable.

“(i) Whether the disputes are capable of adjudication and settlement by arbitration? That is, whether the disputes, having regard to their nature, could be resolved by a private forum chosen by the parties (the Arbitral Tribunal) or whether they would exclusively fall within the domain of public fora (courts).

(ii) Whether the disputes are covered by the arbitration agreement? That is, whether the disputes are enumerated or described in the arbitration agreement as matters to be decided by arbitration or whether the disputes fall under the “excepted matters” excluded from the purview of the arbitration agreement.

(iii) Whether the parties have referred the disputes to arbitration? That is, whether the disputes fall under the scope of the submission to the Arbitral Tribunal, or whether they do not arise out of the statement of claim and the counterclaim filed before the Arbitral Tribunal. A dispute, even if it is capable of being decided by arbitration and falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement, will not be “arbitrable” if it is not enumerated in the joint list of disputes referred to arbitration, or in the absence of such a joint list of disputes, does not form part of the disputes raised in the pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal.”

SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 618

In SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, the majority judgment from a seven-judge Constitution Bench recognized the complementary relationship between Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Court noted how these sections work together in the arbitration process.

“16. We may at this stage notice the complementary nature of Sections 8 and 11. Where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and one of the parties, ignoring it, files an action before a judicial authority and the other party raises the objection that there is an arbitration clause, the judicial authority has to consider that objection and if the objection is found sustainable to refer the parties to arbitration. The expression used in this section is “shall” and this Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju and in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums has held that the judicial authority is bound to refer the matter to arbitration once the existence of a valid arbitration clause is established. Thus, the judicial authority is entitled to, has to and is bound to decide the jurisdictional issue raised before it, before making or declining to make a reference. Section 11 only covers another situation. Where one of the parties has refused to act in terms of the arbitration agreement, the other party moves the Chief Justice under Section 11 of the Act to have an arbitrator appointed and the first party objects, it would be incongruous to hold that the Chief Justice cannot decide the question of his own jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator when in a parallel situation, the judicial authority can do so. Obviously, the highest judicial authority has to decide that question and his competence to decide cannot be questioned. If it is held that the Chief Justice has no right or duty to decide the question or cannot decide the question, it will lead to an anomalous situation in that a judicial authority under Section 8 can decide, but not a Chief Justice under Section 11, though the nature of the objection is the same and the consequence of accepting the objection in one case and rejecting it in the other, is also the same, namely, sending the parties to arbitration. The interpretation of Section 11 that we have adopted would not give room for such an anomaly.”

Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaisеr Aluminium Tеchnical Sеrvicе, Inc.

The BALCO case marked a significant turning point in Indian arbitration, addressing the balance between judicial intervention and party autonomy. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration proceedings. It clarified that the scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited, highlighting that arbitral awards should generally be upheld unless they are clearly illegal or violate public policy.

Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation, (2019) 20 SCC 406

In the 2020 ruling of Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles established in the Booz Allen case regarding the non-arbitrability of certain disputes. The Court emphasized that the terms “rights in rem” and “rights in personam” may not be suitable for determining whether a dispute can be arbitrated, as these concepts interact in complex ways. Specifically, the Court pointed out that a right in rem can lead to an enforceable right in personam This is particularly relevant for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), where the IPR holder has a right in rem that can be enforced against everyone. On the other hand, disputes such as trademark passing off or copyright infringement are classified as rights in personam, meaning they primarily concern the parties involved and do not affect the rights of others. Therefore, it is essential for courts to recognize this difference and allow rights in personam to be arbitrated, thereby supporting the principle of party autonomy in arbitration agreements.

Mediation

Mediation is a way to settle disputes where two or more sides reach an agreement with the help of a neutral person. The mediator doesn’t act like a judge but instead helps the parties find shared solutions. Similar to arbitration, mediation is a voluntary process in which the parties select a third-party mediator to help them resolve their dispute. In contrast to arbitration, the mediator’s sole responsibility is to facilitate conversation between the parties; no legally-binding conclusions are made by them. The mediator assists the parties in reaching a mutually beneficial settlement by listening to both of them.

Mediation is a process focused on repairing relationships and fostering a productive approach to resolving conflicts. It helps the parties identify common concerns, explore different perspectives, and use the conflict as an opportunity for learning and growth. Through mediation, the parties can restart or, in some cases, initiate meaningful negotiations, aiming to improve their relationships and address the issues at hand constructively.

Mediation plays a crucial role in commercial contracts, as these often have significant financial and business implications for both parties. It promotes open communication, especially in long-term contracts where ending the agreement is unlikely. By including a mediation clause in the contract, the parties can avoid litigation and work towards a mutually beneficial outcome, fostering a win-win situation.

In accordance with Section 89, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes fall into one of two categories: adjudicatory processes (Arbitration) and four non-adjudicatory processes (Conciliation, Mediation, Judicial Settlement, and Lok Adalat).

Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) clarifies how different Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods are governed. Specifically, mediation, along with Lok Adalat settlements, is regulated by the Legal Services Authorities Act. This was further interpreted in the Afcon’s Infra judgment, which amended Section 89(2)(c) of the CPC, confirming the legal framework for mediation.

As an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool inside the corporate legal system, mediation was introduced under Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013. In order to put this into effect, on September 9, 2016, notice was given under the Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016. These regulations give businesses an alternative to depending only on entities such as the Central Government, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), or the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as specified in the Companies Act. Instead, they allow businesses to settle regulatory disputes with other parties through mediation and conciliation.

Section 442(1) specifies that the mediation and conciliation panel facilitates mediation between parties during ongoing proceedings. However, the rules appear to treat mediation and conciliation as interchangeable terms, with Rule 17 referring to the “role of mediator or conciliator.” Despite this, mediation and conciliation are typically seen as distinct processes in ADR. Mediation focuses on helping parties negotiate a solution, while conciliation involves a more active role where the conciliator may propose solutions.

Key Case Laws Related to Mediation
Salem Bar Association v. Union of India, (2003)1 SCC 49

In India, mediation gained prominence through the landmark Salem Bar Association (I) case. The challenge revolved around Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which introduced the concept of “settlement of disputes outside courts,” including mediation. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions, rejecting claims that they violated the Constitution.

Following this, the second report of the Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee introduced the Model Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules. These rules provided detailed guidelines on mediation processes, including the role of the mediator. In the Salem Bar Association (II) case, the Supreme Court approved these rules, which led to the creation of the Supreme Court Mediation Training Manual. As a result, mediation centres were established in High Courts across the country to promote quicker dispute resolution..

“9. It is quite obvious that the reason why Section 89 has been inserted to try and see that all the cases which are filed in court need not necessarily be decided by the court itself. Keeping in mind the law’s delay and the limited number of Judges which are available, it has now become imperative that resort should be had to Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism with a view to bring to an end litigation between the parties at an early date. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism as contemplated by Section 89 is arbitration or conciliation or judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Sub-section (2) of Section 89 refer to different acts in relation to arbitration, conciliation or settlement through Lok Adalat, but with regard to mediation Section 89(2)(d) provides that the parties shall follow the procedure as may be prescribed. Section 89(2)(d), therefore, contemplates appropriate rules being framed with regard to mediation.

11. Section 89 is a new provision and even though arbitration or conciliation has been in place as a mode for setting the disputes, this has not really reduced the burden on the courts. It does appear to us that modalities have to be formulated for the manner in which Section 89 and, for that matter, the other provisions which have been introduced by way of amendments, may have to be in operation. All counsel are agreed that for this purpose, it will be appropriate if a Committee is constituted so as to ensure that the amendments made become effective and result in quicker dispensation of justice.

12. This Committee will be at liberty to co-opt any other member and to take assistance of any member of the Bar or Association. This Committee may consider devising a model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be followed while taking recourse to the ADR referred to in Section 89. 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)(d). 24. …The Committee would consider the said difficulties and make necessary suggestions in its report. It is hoped that the amendments now made in the Code of Civil Procedure would help in expeditious disposal of cases in the trial courts and the appellate courts.”

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

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court closely examined Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court clarified the terms by swapping “judicial settlement” and “mediation” in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 89(2). Additionally, the Court provided a list of cases suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which includes disputes related to trade, commerce, and contracts, such as issues arising from contracts, specific performance disputes, and conflicts between suppliers and customers, as well as disputes between bankers and customers.

The Supreme Court held in Afcons Construction Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction that although courts are permitted to consider alternative dispute resolution procedures, arbitration may only be referred if both parties consent to it. This is so because, of the four methods available, arbitration is the only one that includes a formal decision-making process. If both parties don’t agree, one party could disagree with the tribunal’s ruling. Furthermore, an arbitration ruling cannot be appealed on the basis of its merits; rather, it can only be contested on the grounds specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

SUGGESTIONS

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are commonly used by corporations to resolve disputes, as they involve fewer procedural complexities and are less formal than corporate litigation. When compared to litigation, ADR not only saves time but is also more economical. In my opinion, the effectiveness of ADR in corporate disputes can be further enhanced by incorporating Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms. ODR allows disputes to be resolved more quickly and offers greater convenience to the parties involved, particularly corporations. As technology continues to advance, especially following the post-pandemic era, the use of ODR has significantly increased and reached a broader audience. With the rise of technology, ADR processes are evolving, and ODR represents a promising way to improve and streamline corporate dispute resolution. By integrating ODR into ADR mechanisms, corporations can achieve faster and more efficient resolutions, ultimately advancing the dispute resolution process.

CONCLUSION

In the realm of corporate and commercial disputes, ADR mechanisms—particularly mediation and arbitration—emerge as pivotal tools for effective conflict resolution. The evolving nature of these methods, supported by legislative frameworks and judicial interpretations, provides businesses with efficient alternatives to traditional litigation. Arbitration, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, offers a structured, private process with binding decisions, while mediation focuses on collaborative problem-solving and relationship repair. Key case laws, such as Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltd., demonstrate the judiciary’s role in shaping and reinforcing ADR practices. Despite the progress, there remains a need for increased awareness and capacity building around ADR to further enhance its effectiveness. By leveraging ADR, companies can resolve disputes swiftly, minimizing disruptions and fostering a more stable business environment.

Name – Lakshay Sharma

Course- BBA LLB

Vth SEM

Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies Chandigarh

Navigating Corporate Disputes Analysing ADR Mechanisms

Contact Detail

Follow Us