ADR in Money Loan Cases: 

 The Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Money Loan Court Act), 2003 is a special law that laid down, for the very first time, the foundation for speedy disposal of money suits connected with the banking and the non-banking financial institutions. The end in view, inter alia, was the quick recovery of loan amount advanced by the financial institutions within the shortest possible time. Before the amendment in 2010, the provision of ADR was incorporated into the Ain in the form of 'settlement conference'. The court could mediate the suit after the written statement was filed by the defendant or defendants, by adjourning the subsequent procedures of the suit. According to the provision, the presiding judge would call for a settlement conference with a view to settle the dispute at an early stage of the case. The settlement conference would be held in camera. But, the Artha Rin Adalat Ain as it stands now after amendment in 2010 has incorporated the provisions of mediation both at trial as well as the appellate stage repealing the provisions relating to settlement conference. Section 22 of the amended Artha Rin Ain incorporated the provisions of mediation almost in the same words and manners as is provided for under section 89A of the Code but with the exception that in the former case a special resolution providing for authorization of the Board of Directors of the concerned financial institution authorizing one of its officers must be passed and submitted with the concerned Artha Rin Adalat. The Adalat will take special care as to whether the authorized officer acted, during the mediation process, in consonance with the said authorization. Unlike the ADR provisions in the Code, the Artha Rin Adalat Ain created a scope for the Artha Rin Courts, according to which the courts may employ another attempt in order to effect compromise at the post trial stage before passing a final judgment or order in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Ain. The Ain has taken a precautionary measure in respect of disputes having monetary value exceeding take five crore. In this connection, section 25 provides that a special authorization needs to be obtained from the Managing Director or the Chief Operating Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned financial institution before concluding a deal by way of ADR mechanisms under section 22. The Ain takes one step ahead of the Code in the sense that it provides for mediation provisions not only at the appellate stage, but even at the revision and execution stage of an Artha Rin suit too.

ADR in Civil Matters :  ADR in Civil Matters Following the unprecedented success of the family court in resolving family disputes through ADR machinery (Hasan, 2001) , the Legislature incorporated ADR mechanisms into the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by way of amendments. The amended Act of 2003 introduces the court based mediation and arbitration as integral part of the civil proceedings in Bangladesh. However, it was the discretionary power of the court to explore the scope of mediation. Later on, the Code was amended again in 2012 that made the mediation system mandatory in civil proceeding. The Act went through another amendment in 2006 that introduced the provision of mediation even at the appellate stage. As stated, section 89A provided for the provisions relating to mediation. Explanation 1 to the section defines mediation as “flexible, informal, non-binding, confidential, non-adversarial and consensual dispute resolution process in which the mediator shall facilitate compromise of disputes in the suit between the parties without directing or dictating the terms of such compromise.” The analysis of the definition reveals that mediation under the Code is flexible, informal, non-binding, confidential, non-adversarial and consensual in nature. Here, the third party who works as mediator just facilitates the process: he can neither direct nor dictate how and in what terms the compromise will be reached. The Code as it stands now after the amendment in 2012 makes the mediation process compulsory, which means the court is now under an obligation to refer every dispute of civil nature, to which the Code may be made applicable, to mediation. Under the current arrangement the court may, after the written statement has been submitted before the court, itself initiate mediation proceeding, or may refer the same to the engaged pleaders of the disputing parties, or to the parties themselves, or to a mediator from the mediator penal prepared by the concerned District Judge under 89A (10). After reference of a dispute to the engaged pleaders of the disputing parties, they shall, upon consultation with their respective clients, appoint another pleader who was never worked for the parties before, or a retired judge, or a mediator from the penal of mediators prepared under section 89A (10), or to any other person, who, in their opinion, is competent to facilitate the mediation process as a mediator. When the parties themselves decide to mediate with the help of third party neutrals, then they may, upon discussion with their respective pleaders and the mediator, fix the amount of fees to be paid by each party to the mediator, the procedure to be followed during the mediation process and all other ancillary and related matters. The court shall intervene only when the parties, their respective pleaders and the mediator fail to settle down the aforesaid issues, in which case the parties will be bound to abide by the decision of the court. The amended section also brought into effect changes with regard to time frame relating to the start and the end of the mediation process. The section imposes written obligation upon the parties to inform the court within 10 days time starting from the date of reference to mediation by the court under section 89A (1) as to who is being appointed as the mediator, failing which the court shall itself appoint one within 7 days next. The section also restricts the time fame to 60 days within which the mediation process must be concluded. The court may, however, of its own motion or upon a joint request preferred by the parties extend the time period for another 30 days. It is quite obvious that the mediator may happen to be in contact with many sensitive matters or documents of confidential nature and hence, the section also imposed a serious obligation upon the mediator about maintaining confidentiality. It says that the mediator shall prepare a report about the outcome of the mediation process. If the mediation is successful, then the terms of compromise must be reduced to writing with precision in the form of an agreement. The parties will put their hands as executants and so will their lawyers, if there be any, and the mediator as witnesses. In order to encourage the parties to cooperate with the mediation process the section accommodated the following arrangements: (i) the mediation process shall be confidential and any communication made, evidence adduced, admission, statement or comment made and conversation held between the parties, their pleaders, representatives and the mediator, shall be deemed privileged and shall not be referred to and admissible in evidence in any subsequent hearing of the same suit or any other proceeding; (ii) the parties will always have the option to get back to the stage of formal judicial process from which the dispute has been sent for mediation; (iii) in case of court initiated mediation same court shall not hear and dispose the suit, if the court continues to be presided over by the same judge; (iv) the parties will get back the entire amount of money paid as court fees during the institution of the suit and the court will issue a certificate to that effect; (v) once an agreement is reached and executed by the parties, the same is considered to be final and no party will be permitted to reopen the same either by way of a fresh suit or by way of appeal or revision. As mentioned earlier, the Code also introduced ADR at the appellate stage back in 2006. Normally, appeal is considered to be the continuation of the original suit. Hence, in 2006 the parliament opened up the avenue for the resolution of a civil dispute through ADR even at the appellate stage. In order to facilitate the process another section named section 89C was inserted into the Code. Though at its birth the mediation provision at this stage was discretionary in nature lying with the hands of the appellate court, but the Code as it stands after 2012, makes the same as compulsory. Now, every appeal deriving from original decreemust be referred to mediation and comply with the same provisions as enumerated in section 89A.