Skip to content

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

Verma Infra and Bose Constructions failed to settle in conciliation. Verma Infra later started arbitration on a different dispute under another contract. It wants to introduce an admission Bose Constructions made during the earlier conciliation. Which view is correct under the Act?

The admission cannot be relied on. Section 81 prohibits parties from introducing the other party's admissions made during conciliation as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not those proceedings relate to the conciliated dispute. A different dispute therefore makes no difference.

  1. AAllowed, because the arbitration relates to a different dispute
  2. BAllowed, if the admission is relevant and the tribunal is satisfied
  3. CBarred, because the rule applies whether or not the proceedings relate to the conciliated disputeCorrect
  4. DBarred only if Bose Constructions objects within the arbitration

Explanation

Section 81 bars reliance on admissions made by the other party in the course of conciliation in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not they relate to the dispute that was the subject of conciliation. So a different dispute does not help. The bar is not conditional on an objection or on relevance.

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