Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · Conciliation Proceedings and International Perspective of Conciliation

Mehta Exports Ltd (Mumbai) and Orion Trading GmbH (Hamburg) are in a dispute over a supply contract. Mehta sends Orion a written invitation to conciliate under Part III of the Act, and the invitation does not specify any reply period. Orion sends no reply. When may Mehta treat the invitation as rejected?

Mehta may treat the invitation as rejected once thirty days have passed from sending it without a reply, but only if it elects to do so and informs Orion in writing. Silence is not automatic rejection, and no sixty-day rule applies.

  1. AImmediately after sending the invitation, as silence is rejection
  2. BAfter thirty days from the date the invitation was sent, if Mehta elects so and informs Orion in writingCorrect
  3. CAfter sixty days, automatically, without any intimation
  4. DOnly when Orion rejects the invitation in writing

Explanation

Under Section 62(4), if no reply is received within thirty days from sending the invitation (or the period specified in it), the initiating party may elect to treat this as rejection, and must then inform the other party in writing. The automatic-rejection and sixty-day options misstate this. The written-rejection-only option ignores the deemed-rejection route.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Conciliation Proceedings and International Perspective of Conciliation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Conciliation Proceedings and International Perspective of ConciliationFree diagnostic mock

More Conciliation Proceedings and International Perspective of Conciliation questions