Only an agreement concluded in accordance with the form and form provided for and duly certified in accordance with Article 73 may be granted the status of a settlement agreement within the meaning of the law. “If, in the case of a dispute arising out of or related to this Treaty, the parties wish the dispute to be settled amicably by conciliation, the conciliation shall comply with the rules of conciliation applicable for that purpose to the Société des arbitrateurs maritimes, Inc. of New York.” 73. 1. When the conciliator finds that there are elements of the transaction that may be acceptable to the parties, he shall formulate the terms of a possible transaction and submit them to the parties for comment. After receiving the comments of the parties, the conciliator may reformulate the terms of a possible transaction in the light of those observations. Unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise, neither party to the conciliation proceedings shall have the right to rely on or rely on the opinions or statements or offers of settlement expressed by the other party in the conciliation proceedings. the conciliator`s report or recommendations. In accordance with section 73 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the settlement agreement signed by the parties is final and binding on them and on the persons asserting their rights.
It follows that a successful conciliation procedure will only end when the settlement agreement signed by the parties is concluded. This type of agreement has the legal untouchability of an arbitral award under section 74 of the Act. The parties and the conciliator undertake that the conciliator shall not act as an arbitrator, witness, agent or counsel of a party in connection with arbitration or judicial proceedings concerning a dispute which is the subject of the conciliation proceedings. Recently, a single delhi High Court bank was established in the case of Anuradha SA Investments LLC & Anr. v Parsvnath Developers Limited & Ors.4 also considered the concept of a settlement agreement in the context of an arbitral award. The Tribunal was given the opportunity to take up the enforcement of a settlement agreement as an arbitral award. The respondents had challenged the state of alert of the petition on the grounds that the settlement agreement was not an agreement under section 73 of the Act or as a result of the conciliation procedure provided for in Part III of the Act. . . .