Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 8 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8

2013 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

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 2013 Jun examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Jun 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.

Read the original question paper

Q1

Unit 1

(a)Explain the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative dispute resolution systems.[9]

Answer

For full marks, cover: what the ADR method is and why the law adopted it (section 89 CPC, Salem Advocate Bar Association 2002); the advantages, each with its legal basis (speed, cost, informality, party control, privacy, expertise, relationships, finality and enforceability, P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job); the disadvantages and limits (no precedent, power imbalance, no appeal, settlement in place of justice, cost of arbitration, court interference, Guru Nanak Foundation, Jalour Singh); a comparison table; conclusion.

The ADR method and why the law adopted it

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is the settlement of disputes outside the ordinary trial. Its methods are negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and the Lok Adalat. Three laws give them force. They are the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 and section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

The reason is delay in the courts. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49, the Supreme Court upheld the CPC amendments of 1999 and 2002. It said section 89 was inserted so that cases filed in court "need not necessarily be decided by the court itself". Given "the laws delays and the limited number of Judges", resort to ADR had become "imperative".

Advantages

Speed. A mediation under the court rules must normally end within sixty days of the first appearance, extendable by thirty. An arbitral award must normally be made within twelve months of the pleadings closing (section 29A of the 1996 Act). A trial can take many years.
Lower cost. There are fewer hearings and fewer appeals. No court fee is payable in a Lok Adalat. Where a referred case settles there, the court fee already paid is refunded (section 21(1) of the 1987 Act).
Informality. A conciliator is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act (section 66). Parties can speak for themselves in plain words.
Party control. The parties choose the neutral, the place, the language and the procedure. In mediation and conciliation they also decide the outcome. Nothing is imposed on them.

Privacy. Conciliation is confidential by law (section 75), and admissions made in it cannot be used later (section 81). Business secrets and family matters stay out of the public record.
Expertise. Parties can pick an engineer, an accountant or a retired judge who knows the field.
Relationships survive. A settlement looks to the future. Neighbours, partners and families can keep living and working together.
Finality and enforceability. An arbitral award is enforced like a decree (section 36). A signed conciliation settlement has the status of an arbitral award (section 74). A Lok Adalat award is deemed a decree, and no appeal lies against it (section 21).
Relief to the courts. Every case settled outside court frees judicial time for cases that truly need a judge.

P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, AIR 2005 SC 3575, shows the eighth advantage at work. Two brothers had a property dispute. A Lok Adalat recorded their settlement: the elder brother would sell the property to the younger for Rs 9.5 lakhs. The elder brother then refused to sign the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the award is deemed a decree, so the executing court has all its powers over it. The younger brother got the deed executed through court, without a fresh suit.

Disadvantages and limits

No precedent. Settlements and private awards do not build case law. Important questions may never reach a court that can settle them for everyone.
Unequal bargaining power. A rich company and a poor consumer do not negotiate as equals. Without a judge, the weaker side may accept an unfair deal.
No appeal, or very little. A Lok Adalat award cannot be appealed. An arbitral award can be set aside only on narrow grounds (section 34). A mistake may go uncorrected.
Settlement is not always justice. A party may give up a good claim just to end the matter. A compromise splits the difference even where one side was clearly right.

Arbitration can be costly. Fees of senior arbitrators, venues and lawyers can exceed the cost of a suit, especially in a small claim.
Court interference can defeat the purpose. Challenges and appeals can bring back the delay ADR was meant to avoid.
No power to force a settlement. Mediation and conciliation fail if one side will not agree, and the time spent is then lost.
Uneven quality of neutrals. Outcomes depend on the training and honesty of the mediator or arbitrator.

Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, describes the sixth disadvantage under the old Arbitration Act 1940. The Court said the Act was meant to give a forum "less formal, more effective and speedy". But the way proceedings were conducted and "without an exception challenged in Courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep". This experience is why the 1996 Act limits court intervention (section 5).

State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, AIR 2008 SC 1209, shows the seventh. A Lok Adalat had written a reasoned order raising compensation in a motor accident appeal, though the State never agreed. The Supreme Court set it aside. A Lok Adalat has no power to adjudicate. If there is no settlement, it makes no award and returns the case to the court (section 20(5)).

A comparison

Point	Court trial	ADR
Time	Years	Weeks or months
Cost	High	Usually low (arbitration can be high)
Procedure	CPC and Evidence Act	Flexible
Who decides	Judge	Parties, or an arbitrator they choose
Public record	Open court	Private
Appeal	Available	None or very limited
Precedent	Yes	No

Conclusion. The advantages of ADR are speed, low cost, privacy, party control and outcomes that bind like decrees. Its limits are the absence of precedent and appeal, the risk to a weaker party, and dependence on consent. For most civil, commercial and family disputes the advantages are greater. That is why section 89 makes a court consider ADR in every suit. Disputes that need a public ruling or protection of the weak should still go to the court.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Alternative Dispute Resolution 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

Contents