Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. At this, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs submitted that when the first respondent/first defendant has agreed, as could be seen from Clause (ix) of the draft settlement (extracted supra), her present stand in the counter affidavit and the objections are to be over-ruled. The submissions of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  A.No.2044 of 2021 in C.S.No.186 of 2019 learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant, cannot be countenanced in law or on facts in the teeth of the compromise agreement between the parties as reflected in the draft settlement, dated 08.02.2020. If such reversal of stand is to be encouraged and allowed, the purpose of referring the parties to mediation for settlement, would be defeated and lost. Further, the relevant Rules of the Tamil Nedu Mediation Rules, 2010, read with the relevant provisions of the CPC, would be rendered otiose. Therefore, he submitted that this application may be allowed and a 'decree' may be passed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties based on the draft settlement, dated 08.02.2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  A.No.2044 of 2021 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

26. On behalf of the applicants/plaintiffs, strong emphasis has been laid as to the legal sanctity of the settlement reached between the parties before the Court appointed Hon'ble Mediator and the legal import of the settlement minuted and referred back to this Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in fact, referred to Rules 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010. He also referred to Sections 89(1)(d) and 89(2)(d) and Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and Sections 73 and 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is relevant to extract the above provisions hereunder, so as to give a finding that the draft settlement, dated 08.02.2020 can be construed as settlement within the framework of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010 read with the other provisions or not ?

27. As far as Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010 is concerned, it deals with the confidentiality aspect of the mediation. This Court finds that the Rule may not have any bearing on the consideration of this application. Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010, deals https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  A.No.2044 of 2021 in C.S.No.186 of 2019 with the communication between the mediator and the Court. In fact, on behalf of the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel stressed that the communication of the Honourable Mediator enclosing the draft settlement was only with reference to this Rule and not Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010. Rule 25 as could be seen above, is the final settlement agreement. This Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent herein. As a matter of fact, it is very relevant to refer Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010, which reads as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  A.No.2044 of 2021 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

28. The letter of the Honourable Mediator, dated 10.03.2020 addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras, cannot be stated to be with reference to Rule 25, but it should be in the light of Rule 24 read with Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010. The contents of the letter dated 10.03.2020 are extracted infra. Moreover, Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010, contemplates attestation of signatures of the respective parties, by the counsels representing them. The draft settlement did not contain attestation of the counsels who represented the parties in the mediation.