Arbitration Process

File a Claim
A claimant initiates an arbitration by filing a statement of claim that specifies the relevant
facts and remedies requested.
Answer a Claim
A respondent responds to an arbitration claim by filing an answer that specifies the relevant
facts and available defenses to the statement of claim.

Arbitrator Selection
Arbitrator selection is the process in which the parties receive lists of potential arbitrators and
select the panel to hear their case.
Prehearing Conferences
Prior to the hearing, the arbitrators and parties meet telephonically to schedule hearing dates
and resolve preliminary issues.

Discovery
Discovery is the exchange of documents and information in preparation for the hearing.

Hearings
The parties and arbitrators meet in person to conduct the hearing in which the parties present
arguments and evidence in support of their respective cases.

Decision & Awards

After the conclusion of the hearing, the arbitrators deliberate the facts of the case and render
a written decision called an award.

Initiating the arbitration. If your agreement requires you to use one of the large arbitration
associations, the agency helps select the arbitrator, or panel of up to three people for more
complex cases, who will hear and decide the dispute. These agencies usually impose their own
procedural rules and oversee the housekeeping details such as notifying the parties about when
and where to meet.
If no group has been specified, the parties are on their own to administer the proceeding, choose
arbitrators, and set the schedule and rules that will control. Such ad hoc arrangements are often
quicker and less expensive than when an agency is involved, but require a fair amount of
cooperation between the disputing parties, who must agree on important matters, such as which
arbitrator will decide the matter.

Pre-hearing conferences. Brief conferences are sometimes held before the arbitration hearing to
sketch out details such as the need for confidentiality throughout the entire process and to iron
out hotly contested issues, such as whether an arbitrator can also decide related claims.
The arbitration hearing. Unlike trials, which are generally confined to courtrooms, the parties
can agree to have arbitrations in any convenient setting, although a neutral office or conference
center is usually deemed best. Cost, formality, and location also weigh into the decision.
At the hearing, each side has the chance to present his or her version of the conflict, usually with
a brief opening statement bolstered by evidence such as relevant contracts and other paperwork,
and tangible things -- for example, a piece of broken or shoddy merchandise if that plays a role
in the dispute. Witnesses may also be called to testify and be questioned and cross-examined.
That is usually followed by brief closing arguments during which both sides summarize the
evidence, explain how it relates to the individual theory of the case, and set out why the
arbitrator should rule in his or her favor. In some arbitrations, there are no closing arguments, but
the parties are encouraged instead to write out their theories and evidence in post-hearing briefs.
The arbitration decision. Arbitrators are free to base their decisions on their own ideas of what
is fair and just. Unlike judges, they are not required to follow the law or the reasoning of earlier
case decisions.
Most will submit their decisions in writing -- sometimes as a simple statement of who won and
how much money is due him or her, sometimes with explanations and a rationale of the
reasoning ranging in length from a few to dozens of pages. While one goal of arbitration is to get
disputes resolved quickly, arbitrators operate under widely varying deadlines -- from ten days to
six months -- as to when their decisions are due.
Appealing the arbitration decision. Arbitration decisions are usually regarded as final and it is
very tough to get a court to review or vacate them. Generally, an arbitrator's decision can only be
appealed if there is proof that:

corruption, fraud, or undue influence was used in securing the award

the arbitrator was corrupt or biased

the arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing even though there was sufficient cause to
delay it, or

the arbitrator exceeded his or her power.

Conciliation is a first step, and if it fails then the parties resort to arbitration. Thus,
conciliation is a precursor to arbitration.
Section 77 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides an option to the parties to resort to
arbitration or judicial proceedings if they feel a need for the same. Amicable settlement denotes the
modes of dispute resolution in which the parties retain their freedom to decide the outcome of their
dispute. Amicable settlement is a desirable solution for business disputes and differences. It can occur
before or during the litigation or arbitration of a dispute and can often be facilitated through the aid of
a third party (the Neutral) in accordance with simple rules of procedure. It could cover negotiation,
mediation and conciliation. Amicable settlement enables the parties to resolve the dispute and bury
the past, preserves the present relationship and paves a better future. It involves the following steps:

Bringing the parties to the negotiating table. The parties should come to the negotiation table
on their own or on the initiative of the mediator/conciliator. The phrase negotiating table

means a formal discussion to try and reach an agreement. Therefore, for amicable settlement
of their dispute, first of all, the parties should discuss to try and reach an agreement.

Identifying problems. The parties should identify the problems between them. Two points
deserve to be mentioned here: One, only those problems that exist between the parties and
require to be resolved in order to preserve their relationship should be discussed. Two, those
problems should be defined precisely without giving any room for vagueness and ambiguity.

Establishing facts. The facts should be established. That is to say, all the facts relevant to the
case for which solution is being tried should be ascertained. Fact, means and includes
anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; any
mental condition of which any person is conscious.

Clarifying the issues. The issues which shape into the disputes should be clarified. The disputes
may relate to clarity of matters such as money matters, professional status, reputation, health
and so on involving variegated issues. An issue arises when a material proposition of fact or
law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Material propositions are those of law or
fact which the claimant may allege in order to show a right to claim or which a defendant must
allege in order to constitute his defense. Issues of fact may arise from the credibility of the
parties themselves or from data supplied by third parties, including interpretations placed on
such data and issues of law will generally arise from opinions given by respective legal
representatives. Issues, both of law and fact should clarify before developing the option for
settlement.

Developing the options for settlement. The mediator/conciliator opens to the disputing parties
a variety of available options besides those they can think of themselves. By promoting their
attitudes and discovering in what fields they may be prepared to show some flexibility, he
gains a perspective of the issues in dispute and of alternative possibilities of settlement. These
options may vary in number according to the nature of the issues involved; and they may be
available in respect of a single issue or a combination of issues.

Ultimately reaching agreement. The mediator/conciliator should not himself make a proposal
for settlement of the dispute unless he has exhausted all possibilities of obtaining a settlement
on the basis of the parties proposed solutions. If the dispute involves a number of issues, his
proposal should be for a package settlement that will dispose of all such issues. He should
not formally make his proposal at a joint meeting without having first obtained the agreement
of each of the parties separately.

If it is not possible to obtain agreement on the issues, he should do his best to persuade the parties to
agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration.[ A primer on Alternative Dispute Resolution]
Courts and arbitrators decide the dispute after a contest between the parties, while in the case of
conciliation the final result depends on the will of the parties. In such type of methods the resolution of
conflict by conciliation, emotional harmony between the parties does not suffer. There is a caveat to
the resolution on dispute by conciliation to have it effectively implemented. It is necessary to have
trained conciliators at the disposal of courts so that regular cases can be disposed of with the aid of
parallel mechanism thereby unburdening the courts and other reducing judicial delays.
Conciliation mends relationship. It is an informal method of dispute resolution. It places emphasis on
peace and harmony over conflict, litigation and victory. It is the first step and in any dispute between
the parties if it does not work then the parties should resort to arbitration. As arbitration in the modern
times, though is considered a better means to resolve disputes over litigation, has some negative
points too because here also, a third party decides on the behalf of the conflicting parties. Conciliation
on the other hand, has no similarity with litigation as such; it gives a lot of scope for the parties in
conflict to resolve the disputes by their own will and determination. An ideal way of proceeding in a
case of a dispute would be first try resolving the dispute by conciliation and if that doesnt work resort
to arbitration.

According to certain social scientists and other scholars, ADR mechanisms would yield remedies better
tailored to parties unique needs and more direct involvement of disputants would encourage greater
compliance with outcomes and help rebuild ruptured relationships. Thus, it can be reasonably
concluded that Conciliation, being the precursor to arbitration, is definitely for the good.
Conciliation is unquestionably a better option than arbitration as the experience in past few years has
shown that arbitration is neither inexpensive nor time saving. In cases where court has been given the
authority to review the outcome, the advantage does not appear to be real on account of first
spending time before the arbitration tribunals and then in courts. Conciliation is a more amicable way
to settle disputes without harming the personal relations as well. Thus, the pros of Conciliation are
categorically more than arbitration which asserts my stand that it is for the better.
_______________________