Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Disputes: A Critical Research Article
This article is written by Siddhi Wadkar, pursuing a B.A. LL.B. from Government Law College, Mumbai.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has emerged as a central mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in modern legal and business systems. In an era marked by complex transactions, cross-border commerce, high-value contracts, and increasing pressure on judicial institutions, ADR offers parties a more flexible, confidential, and efficient alternative to traditional litigation. Commercial disputes often require solutions that are not only legally sound but also commercially sensible, time-sensitive, and relationship-preserving. ADR meets these needs by providing processes such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, each of which offers distinct advantages depending on the nature of the dispute. This article examines the meaning, scope, and practical utility of ADR in commercial disputes, with specific attention to its doctrinal basis, institutional relevance, and contemporary significance in India. It also critically evaluates the limitations of ADR, including inequality of bargaining power, enforcement issues, procedural complexity in arbitration, and the limits of consensual settlement in adversarial disputes. The article argues that ADR should be understood not as a peripheral substitute for court litigation but as an essential component of modern commercial dispute architecture, especially where speed, privacy, expertise, and business continuity are important.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this research article, submitted by students and/or other contributors in their personal capacity, are solely those of the author(s) and do not, in any manner whatsoever, reflect or represent the views, opinions, advice, or official position of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP (“PACTEDGE”). PACTEDGE makes no representations or warranties, whether express or implied, as to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or currency of any facts, data, analysis, or legal propositions contained herein and shall not, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be liable for any loss, injury, damage, or consequence arising directly or indirectly from any reliance placed upon this publication. The entire contents of this research article, including without limitation its text, structure, compilation, selection and arrangement of material, are and shall remain the exclusive intellectual property of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP, protected under applicable copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, adapted, published, communicated to the public, distributed, or otherwise made available in any form or by any means, whether electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, nor shared or reposted on any platform or medium, without the prior written consent of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP; any unauthorised use shall constitute infringement and may attract civil and/or criminal consequences, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP in law or equity.
Comments