Practice Of Handwritten Clauses In Mediation Settlement Needs To Be Discontinued Unless Countersigned By Mediator, Parties: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the practice of handwritten clauses in mediation settlements needs to be discontinued forthwith, unless it is countersigned or initialled by the Mediator or Counsellor as well as by the parties in their presence."Often when a settlement is recorded, it is after a lot of dialogue between the parties, who have invariably suffered long...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the practice of handwritten clauses in mediation settlements needs to be discontinued forthwith, unless it is countersigned or initialled by the Mediator or Counsellor as well as by the parties in their presence.
"Often when a settlement is recorded, it is after a lot of dialogue between the parties, who have invariably suffered long litigations, harassment and much anguish. They may not know the finer points of recording of the mediated settlement agreements; therefore, it becomes the duty of the Mediator/Counsellor to ensure that the settlement agreement is recorded specifically in terms of the dicta of this court in Rajat Gupta (supra)," Justice Najmi Waziri said.
In the Rajat Gupta case, the Mediators were requested to not allow any handwritten notations or words in the Mediation or settlement agreements especially if the same were not countersigned or initialled by the Mediator himself.
Accordingly, Justice Waziri was of the view thus:
"The learned Family Court too shall ensure that whenever a settlement agreement is recorded, it is in accordance with the aforesaid dicta. In cases of default, the agreement may be referred back to the mediation centre for correcting the anomaly. The learned Family Court shall ensure that the recording of the settlement/undertaking of the parties is in terms of Rajat Gupta (supra)."
The development came in a contempt petition filed by a husband against the respondent wife for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court wherein the statement of wife's counsel was recorded saying that she does not wish to pursue the petition, as the matter was amicably settled between the parties in terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, both the parties had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage.
The Amicus Curiae submitted that none of the essential elements of the procedure as laid down by the Division Bench in Rajat Gupta case was followed in the matter.
"The court would note that the mediation settlement has handwritten clauses which are not in seriatim. They have not been signed at each place where clauses have been inserted. To obviate any doubts, each such handwritten clause ought to have been countersigned by all the parties. That not being done, it raises doubts about the parties being ad idem apropos the said clauses," the Court observed at the outset.
The Court took note of the fact that since the settlement agreement was not in terms of the decision of the Division Bench nor any undertaking of the wife was recorded before the Family Court and was without an affidavit affirming the terms of the settlement, the said agreement does not form a part of the court order.
"Accordingly, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed contempt of court. No contempt is made out," the Court said.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Title: MAHINDER SINGH v. MEENAKSHI YADAV