|| Author: Duncan Riley|

Settlement Agreement India

A settlement agreement is an agreement drawn up by a conciliator when he considers that there is a possibility of consensual compromise between the parties. A conciliator assists the parties in the amicable settlement of disputes between them. The method of granting authorization involves obtaining a settlement after the commencement of arbitration proceedings and inviting the arbitrator to register the parties` IMSA as assent. As already stated, approvals are generally considered enforceable under the New York Convention. The Model Law (article 30) and the rules of most arbitral institutions explicitly refer to such arbitral awards. This solution does little to help parties who have not considered initiating arbitration before reaching a negotiated settlement. A technical problem arises in the legislation that transforms an IMSA into an arbitral award (usually through the appointment of an arbitrator confirming the IMSA). Most commentators agree that the New York Convention requires that there be a dispute at the time of appointment; Therefore, if an arbitrator is appointed after the settlement, the converted IMSA will likely not be enforceable as an arbitral award under the New York Convention. The arbitral tribunal relies on a valid settlement agreement to give its consent. Consent cannot be granted by an invalid transaction agreement. A settlement agreement setting out the obligations of both parties usually sets out the conditions for its entry into force.

The parties meet the conditions laid down and submit to the court of arbitration the supporting documents necessary to determine the execution of the transaction. As is apparent from the case law, it has been reiterated that a settlement agreement can obtain the colour of an arbitral award only if all the correspondence provided for in article 73 is respected. Thus, an agreement between the parties, duly certified by the conciliator, has the same effect as an arbitral award on the terms agreed in the dispute, as rendered by an arbitral tribunal duly constituted in accordance with article 30 of the Act. While the Singapore Mediation Convention does not insist on using the term “mediation” to describe how a settlement can be reached (mediation and mediation being used interchangeably in several jurisdictions), Indian law distinguishes between mediation and conciliation. For example, the Singapore Arbitration Act treats mediation and conciliation proceedings on an equal footing and does not create any distinction. But what characterizes Singapore`s national mediation regime is the passage in 2017 of the Mediation Act (Act 1 of 2017), which significantly strengthened the framework for the application of private comparisons in Singapore. . . .

Comments are closed