Haresh Dayaram Thakur v State of Maharashtra
Rule established
Conciliation under Part III of the 1996 Act is consensual; it commences only upon acceptance of invitation by the other party; no compulsion
Facts
- Dispute arose between parties; one party sent an invitation to conciliate under Part III
- The other party did not accept the invitation
- The question was whether conciliation could be forced on an unwilling party
Issue
- Whether conciliation proceedings under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require mandatory consent of both parties.
Held
- Conciliation is a consensual process; it commences only upon acceptance of the invitation (S.62).
- No party can be compelled to participate in conciliation.
- If the invitation is rejected or not responded to within 30 days, there is no conciliation (S.62(4)).
- Consent is the foundation of conciliation; coerced conciliation defeats its very purpose.
Ratio Decidendi
Conciliation under Part III is voluntary. Proceedings commence only upon written acceptance of the invitation. No party can be forced to conciliate. The consensual nature is what distinguishes conciliation from arbitration (which, once agreed, is binding).
How to use it in an exam
Key line: "Conciliation is consensual. No party can be compelled to participate. Proceedings commence only upon acceptance of the written invitation under S.62."
Source
Source: Supreme Court judgment
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.