Latest News

Alternative dispute resolution vs Litigation

Alternative dispute resolution

Alternative dispute resolution is several means used to determine a conflict other than through litigation. Examples include arbitration, Lok Adalat, negotiation, facilitated discussion, and mediation.

Key features

  • Allows for a custom-built win-win conclusion on the entire or part of the issues.
  • Focuses on compromise construction and are expectations oriented.
  • Aims to settle on the party’s wellbeing.
  • Engage the contribution of a nonaligned and objective alternative dispute resolution practitioner, preferred or contracted upon by all parties, to make possible participants negotiations and discussions.
  • Intended participation, apart from where the court-appointed, and participants can depart from the procedure at any stage.
  • Frequently familiar, less controlled, and flexible.
  • Emphasizes affinity over self-curiosity and understanding over execution.


  • Parties energetically participate in the procedure, describe the issues, and hold on to control of the outcome; they have the concluding pronounce not the alternative dispute resolution practitioner.
  • Discussions, negotiations, and documentation are classified, except otherwise requisite by law, and do not form a division of the public proof.
  • It allows for an undeviating statement concerning participants in a non-offensive situation to classify the factual issues and root of the dispute.
  • Each party has the chance to portray the circumstances from his or her perception, needs, and interests devoid of the limitations of the civil rules.
  • Requires assurance; result also requires good faith contribution by all participants; time and money will be shattered if the purpose to work in partnership is not present.
  • An alternative dispute resolution process can be programmed at the ease of participants and practitioners.
  • Allows for the artistic conversation of options and a wider series of promising outcomes, such as better understanding of others' perspective and change in practice or process.
  • Parties set aside the right to litigate if they are miserable with the process or do not reach agreement; they can walk away or proceed to litigation.
  • If a mutually satisfactory resolution is reached, the agreement can result in a legally binding settlement agreement.


Litigation is the act or course of bringing about or contesting a claim that is, using the traditional court organization.

Key features

  • May result in a “the entire or zero” decision.
  • It focuses on the particulars and is past-oriented.
  • Aims to conclude the party’s legal rights.
  • Conclude winners and losers.
  • Frequently involves a judge who is appointed by the court to settle on the outcome based on the law and legal precedents.
  • Obligatory input once legal action is initiated.
  • Dignified and highly prearranged.
  • Pricey and lengthy delays.


  • Communication generally occurs through lawyers.
  • Fallout cannot be predicted; liability for the decision rests with a court-appointed third party.
  • Decisions rendered can act as precedent in upcoming alike cases.
  • It provides a community record of evidence and a conclusion supported by reasons that may be subject matter to appeal.
  • Frequently requires more wealth (more costly, more witnesses, experts, and preparation time) and longer wait time for decisions.
  • When speedy action is required, the courts can present emergency rulings, such as injunctions, which are not constantly likely in alternative dispute resolution processes.
  • Guarantee a decision; even in cases where the dispute involves a non-flexible issue.
  • Focuses on influential what is legal and what is not.
  • Provides authority on issues that engage a breach of law or statute understanding.
  • Perfect for cases that have implications for an ample variety of individuals external of the abrupt restricted dispute or where parties want to have a third party be accountable for the pronouncement.

Deciding how to proceed

When evaluating your options, it is significant to consider the following:

  • What extent of control, as a participant, would you like to have?
  • Who has the conclusion-making authority for this dispute?
  • What extent of conclusion-making authority would you like the third party to have?
  • What the authority dynamics are to engage in recreation within this dispute?
  • What the proposed goal is in determined to resolve this dispute?


  • Alternative dispute resolution
  • Key features
  • Consideration

BY : Umang Yadav

All Latest News