The appointment of a conciliator is made under Section 64 AC Act. Section 66 AC Act states that the conciliator “is not bound by CPC or Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” Section 65 law provides that the conciliator may ask each party to provide a brief written statement outlining the general nature of the litigation and the issues raised by the dispute, to ask either party for written explanations, supporting documents and evidence and/or additional information that it deems appropriate. Section 67 AC Act defines the role of the conciliator (s). Conciliators may submit proposals to resolve the dispute in writing or by other means. Conciliator (s) therefore plays a proactive role in resolving the dispute. The conciliators may, even with the agreement of the parties, seek the assistance of an institution or an appropriate person to facilitate the execution of the procedure. Communication between the parties and the conciliator can be done orally or in writing. An agreement between the parties to the dispute is a resort we desperately need in the modern trading world. An agreement ensures that disputes between the parties end by mutual agreement, so that each party is satisfied.
In return, out-of-court settlement procedures, such as conciliation, weigh less heavily on the courts and also reduce the cost of litigation for litigants. Thus, these comparisons were similarly welcomed by the parties to the trial and by the courts. Therefore, the courts have not hesitated or challenged the finality of the terms of a settlement agreement, such as an arbitration award, as under the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Such an injunction (within the meaning of the transaction agreement) could be enforceable within the meaning of Section 36 CPC in the same way as a decree. (h) If the reference to the REL procedure is not made, the court will proceed with the appeal after receiving the report from the REL forum. In the event of a transaction, the court reviews the transaction and adopts an order-in-council to that effect, taking into account the principles of Rule 3 of the third sentence of the code. The Court stated: “It is not any agreement or agreement reached between the parties to the disputes in any form, whereas the detailed nature of a conciliation procedure automatically obtains the status of a settlement agreement within the meaning of section 73 of the Act, so that it has the same status and effect as if it were an arbitration award that would be carried out as a decision of the court. Only the agreement which was concluded in accordance with form and form and which was duly authenticated in accordance with section 73 of the Act can only be granted the status of a transaction agreement in the sense and for the effectiveness of the law, and not otherwise. It should have met the essential legal requirements to be fulfilled for the meaning of such a status….