KSLU Solved Question Papers
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2012 Jan Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2012 Jan Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2012 Jan examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2012 Jan examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2012 Jan examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 2 hours · Total marks 60 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain the need for alternative dispute resolution system.[9]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the ordinary courts alone cannot meet the demand for justice; the needs one by one: arrears and too few judges (All India Judges' Association 2002), delay as a denial of the right to speedy justice (Hussainara Khatoon), cost and access for the poor (Article 39A, Lok Adalats), technicality (Guru Nanak Foundation), relationships, commercial and international needs, privacy and expertise, party autonomy; how Parliament and the courts answered these needs (section 89 CPC, Salem Advocate Bar Association 2002, section 12A Commercial Courts Act); a table; conclusion.
The starting point
A court trial is the formal way to decide a dispute, and for some disputes it is the only proper way. But the courts cannot carry every dispute that arises in a country of India's size. The need for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems grows out of the limits of the court system and the nature of many disputes.
1. Arrears and too few judges
Courts carry a heavy backlog, and judges are too few for the population. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Supreme Court noted that India had about 10.5 judges for every ten lakh people. The Law Commission had recommended fifty. The Court held that an independent and efficient judicial system is part of the basic structure. It directed the judge strength to be raised to fifty per ten lakh in phases. Even with more judges, the number of cases means that every dispute cannot be tried.
2. Delay defeats justice
Delay is a denial of justice. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, undertrial prisoners had waited in jail for years, some longer than the maximum sentence for their offence. The Supreme Court treated speedy trial and free legal aid as part of the fair procedure Article 21 requires. A settlement or award that comes in months rather than years meets this need.
3. Cost and access for the poor
Court fees, lawyers' fees and years of hearings put litigation beyond many people. Article 39A directs the State to ensure that justice is not denied for want of means. No court fee is payable in a Lok Adalat. A referred case that settles there earns a refund of the court fee paid (section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987). Mediation is cheap, and for legally aided parties it is free.
4. Technical procedure
Strict rules of pleading, evidence and appeal can defeat a just claim. In Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, the Supreme Court regretted that even arbitration under the 1940 Act had become "highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity". At every stage it provided "a legal trap to the unwary". ADR methods are free of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act. See section 66 of the 1996 Act and section 22D of the 1987 Act.
5. Relationships that must survive
A trial ends in one winner and one loser. Families, neighbours, business partners, and employers and workmen must often go on living or working together. A negotiated settlement keeps the relationship; a decree usually breaks it.
6. Commercial and international needs
Business needs quick, private and expert decisions. Foreign investors want a neutral forum and an award they can enforce. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 follows the UNCITRAL Model Law to meet this need. Commercial suits of a specified value must now first try pre-institution mediation (section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015).
7. Privacy and expertise
Court hearings are public. Trade secrets and family matters are better kept private. Conciliation is confidential by law (section 75), and so are arbitral proceedings (section 42A). Parties can also choose an engineer, accountant or doctor as the neutral.
8. Party autonomy
People want a say in how their dispute ends. In mediation and conciliation they decide the outcome themselves. In arbitration they choose the decision-maker and the procedure.
How the law answered these needs
Parliament inserted section 89 into the Code of Civil Procedure in 1999, in force from 2002. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49, the Supreme Court explained its purpose. Given "the laws delays and the limited number of Judges", resort to ADR had become "imperative". So every court must now consider sending a suit to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, Lok Adalat or mediation. Lok Adalats, Permanent Lok Adalats, section 12A mediation and the Mediation Act 2023 are further answers to the same needs.
A table
| Need | How ADR meets it |
|---|---|
| Arrears, few judges | Settles cases outside the court list |
| Delay | Time limits: s.29A, 1996 Act; mediation rules |
| Cost and access | Lok Adalats free; legal aid; low fees |
| Need | How ADR meets it |
|---|---|
| Technicality | Not bound by CPC and Evidence Act |
| Relationships | Settlement, not victory |
| Business and investors | Arbitration under the 1996 Act |
| Privacy and expertise | Confidential process; expert neutrals |
| Autonomy | Parties choose method, neutral and outcome |
Conclusion. ADR systems are needed because the courts face huge arrears with too few judges, and delay itself denies justice. Litigation is also costly and technical, and it breaks relationships. Business, the poor and families each need a quicker, cheaper and more flexible route. The Supreme Court recognised these needs in All India Judges' Association, Hussainara Khatoon and Salem Advocate Bar Association. Parliament answered them through the 1996 Act, the 1987 Act and section 89. ADR does not replace the courts; it lets them concentrate on the cases that truly need a judge.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 8 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.