Party autonomy, which is generally the basis of a conciliation agreement, aims to eliminate the traditional application phase. Unfortunately, in cases where one of the parties unilaterally decides to violate this conciliation agreement, it is very surprising to know what is good for the other party. In Singapore, parties to private mediation can apply directly to a court and refer to their negotiated transaction contract as the Tribunal`s “order.” This allows the agreement to be enforced directly by a court in the unfortunate case of a unilateral violation. A transaction contract can also be challenged in court, although it can only be revoked with a court order. A transaction contract may be challenged if it is fraud or coercion, misrepresentation or improper execution. Section 30 of the UNCLOS Model Act on International Commercial Arbitration encourages the resolution of disputes through a settlement between parties through mediation. An agreement between the parties ensures that disputes end by mutual agreement, so that each party is satisfied. In addition, transaction procedures such as mediation reduce the burden on the courts, reduce litigation costs for the parties and are more likely to have commercial relationships. Unlike Britain or Singapore, India is not a pro-mediation country. Several courts in India have reprehensible the legislator for the slippage. He adds: “It is well established that a legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. Section 74 of the Act creates a legal fiction to impose the status and effect of a Section 73 transaction agreement for attribution.
The objective is clearly to allow the application of such agreements as an arbitral award without further adjudication procedure. Legal fiction cannot be extended to other statutes. The official press release states that “under the current agreement, companies that strive to enforce a cross-border transaction agreement can do so by speaking directly to the courts of the countries that signed and ratified it, rather than having to apply the transaction agreement as a treaty in accordance with each country`s national procedure.” Enforcing negotiated or conciliatory transaction agreements in India and the effects of the Singapore mediation agreement The couple cannot compromise by renouncing their food rights and settling for an out-of-court divorce through an agreement. The same goes for marital agreements. The couple cannot obtain a marriage agreement because it is not valid in India. Marital agreements have no binding value in Indian courts. The Indian court does not accept the out-of-court divorce settlement. Mediation is a way to resolve the dispute, but if the couple simply wants to annul the marriage without informing the court of their intention, it is not a smart way to separate. If you are legally married, you can apply for and apply for a divorce decree that dissolves your marriage, the extrajudicial divorce is not accepted by the courts of our country. Given that the Indian regime distinguishes between mediation and conciliation, it is inevitable that the law will equate the two in terms of uniformity of application and recognition. Mediation will only function as a viable REL process if it is on an equal footing with conciliation and arbitration. Finally, when drafting a mediation law, Parliament must also ensure that it limits the scope of the challenge to transaction agreements.
Or even if they are treated as arbitration awards, they are rendered unusable. In accordance with section 73 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (`Law`), the transaction contract signed by the parties is final and binding on them and for those invoked.