Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · Arbitral Proceedings, Pleadings and Evidence

In an arbitration between Bharat Agro Ltd and Mehta Seeds LLP, the sole arbitrator, relying on section 19(1) that the tribunal is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, admits a conciliator's written settlement proposal from an earlier failed conciliation between the same parties, produced by Bharat Agro. Mehta Seeds objects. Which analysis is correct?

The objection succeeds. Section 81(c) bars parties from relying on proposals made by the conciliator in arbitral or judicial proceedings. Section 19 frees the tribunal from the Evidence Act and lets it judge admissibility in general, but it does not override this specific statutory prohibition.

  1. AThe objection succeeds, because section 81(c) bars parties from relying on proposals made by the conciliator, and section 19(1) frees the tribunal only from the Evidence Act and Code of Civil ProcedureCorrect
  2. BThe objection fails, because section 19(4) gives the tribunal power over admissibility of any evidence
  3. CThe objection fails, because the proposal was made by a neutral conciliator and not by a party
  4. DThe objection succeeds only if Mehta Seeds had accepted the proposal

Explanation

Section 81(c) specifically bars parties from relying on conciliator proposals in arbitral proceedings. Section 19(1) and 19(4) operate within Part I and the tribunal's procedural power does not displace this express prohibition. Acceptance is irrelevant to clause (c), and the conciliator's neutrality is no exception.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Arbitral Proceedings, Pleadings and Evidence shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Arbitral Proceedings, Pleadings and EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Arbitral Proceedings, Pleadings and Evidence questions