The argument that the transaction agreement is not sufficiently persuasive. The Court found that under Section 74, a transaction agreement would have the status and effect “as if it were an arbitral award”; Therefore, legal fiction gave the same status and effect as an arbitration award to a transaction agreement concluded in the conciliation procedure and certified by the conciliator. In other words, the transaction contract can be imposed as an arbitration award and it is not necessary for a party to a new procedure to be initiated in order to obtain an order concerning that decree. However, this does not mean that the transaction agreement will no longer be entered into voluntarily between the parties and will become an arbitral award; it has only the status and effect of a distinction under the law. The transaction agreement remains an agreement and should be labelled as such.” India, as a developing country, is undergoing major economic reforms under the law, which establishes an out-of-court dispute settlement (ADR) for the resolution of disputes and the reduction of the burden on the courts. Indian courts are facing a serious backlog of cases, in part due to a small number of judges and a lack of infrastructure that is unable to cope with the burden of the case. The Supreme Court in Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra2 decided that a conciliator`s request was to amicably assist the parties in resolving disputes. If the conciliator believes that there is an element of dispute between the parties, he or she can enter into an agreement under Section 73 of the Act. The transaction will not be concluded until the transaction agreement is signed by both parties to the dispute. Such a transaction agreement may then have the legal disqualification of an arbitration award under Section 74 of the Act. The relevant part of the judgment has been extracted: the method of granting consent involves reaching a transaction after the start of the arbitration process and inviting the arbitrator to consider the parties` IMSA as a decision of approval.
As has already been said, approvals are generally considered enforceable under the New York Convention. These types of prices are expressly covered by the Model Act (Article 30) and by the rules of most arbitration institutions. This solution does little to support the parties who have not considered creating arbitration before reaching a negotiated agreement. The working group still needs to do considerable work to agree on a framework, starting with fundamental concepts: defining the scope and type of agreement to be developed; the development of a functional definition of “mediation/conciliation of international trade”; Defining the form and substance requirements for IMSA; due process requirements.