ADRConciliationSupreme Court of India

Haresh Dayaram Thakur v State of Maharashtra

(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 17920001 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Dispute arose between parties; one party sent an invitation to conciliate under Part III. The other party did not accept the invitation. The question was whether conciliation could be forced on an unwilling party.
Issue
Whether conciliation proceedings under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require mandatory consent of both parties.
Held
Conciliation is a consensual process; it commences only upon acceptance of the invitation (S.62).
Principle
Conciliation under Part III of the 1996 Act is consensual; it commences only upon acceptance of invitation by the other party; no compulsion
Cite this

Facts

  • Dispute arose between parties; one party sent an invitation to conciliate under Part III
  • The other party did not accept the invitation
  • The question was whether conciliation could be forced on an unwilling party

Issue

  1. Whether conciliation proceedings under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require mandatory consent of both parties.

Held

  • Conciliation is a consensual process; it commences only upon acceptance of the invitation (S.62).
  • No party can be compelled to participate in conciliation.
  • If the invitation is rejected or not responded to within 30 days, there is no conciliation (S.62(4)).
  • Consent is the foundation of conciliation; coerced conciliation defeats its very purpose.

Ratio decidendi

Conciliation under Part III is voluntary. Proceedings commence only upon written acceptance of the invitation. No party can be forced to conciliate. The consensual nature is what distinguishes conciliation from arbitration (which, once agreed, is binding).

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Key line: "Conciliation is consensual. No party can be compelled to participate. Proceedings commence only upon acceptance of the written invitation under S.62."

Cite this

Citation

Haresh Dayaram Thakur v State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 179

Reported: Supreme Court judgment. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.