Case at a Glance
A first appeal by the State of Manipur and its power utilities was settled through court-referred mediation, and both sides asked the High Court to record the settlement in a judgment. The Division Bench explained why that was still necessary: Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023, which would make a mediated settlement enforceable like a court decree, has not yet been brought into force. It urged early notification of Sections 19(1) and 27, held that a government or company must send a natural person with written authority to decide and sign at mediation, and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement with a decree to be drawn up.
The appeal was filed by the State of Manipur, the Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited, the Manipur State Power Company Limited and two officials against a woman and a minor represented by her. The matter was referred to mediation through the High Court Mediation Centre and the High Court Legal Services Committee. An earlier round failed to produce a binding result because no officer with a mandate attended, and the matter came back to court.
In the second round, the parties signed a settlement agreement on 2 November 2026, and the Legal Services Committee reported on 3 November 2026 that the mediation was successful. On 5 November 2026 counsel jointly asked the Court to pass a judgment recording the settlement. The Court referred to its own earlier ruling in Meitankeisangbam (Ongbi) Ibemcha Devi v. Meitankeisangbam Indrajit Singh on the non-enforceability of mediated settlements.
The Key Question Before the Court
Why must parties still return to court for a judicial order after a successful mediation, and who must represent a government or other juridical person at mediation?
A Law Only Partly in Force
The Court noted that only 21 of the 65 sections of the Mediation Act, 2023 were brought into force on 9 October 2023, and that Sections 19(1) and 27 remain dormant. As a result, “a mediated settlement agreement is not enforceable as a decree of the Court owing to Section 27” not having come into force. The Act is “a conditional legislation as is clear from sub-Section (3) of Section 1”, and the Court observed that “it is desirable to have Sections 19 (1) and 27 besides some other important provisions” notified at the earliest, so that parties need not come to court for a judicial order after mediation.
On representation, the Court said that an entity sending a representative to mediation must provide a natural person with a written mandate and authority who can decide and sign the settlement. Here the signatories had separate written mandates placed before the Mediator and the Court, although their designations were not written in the signature blocks, which the Court accepted. It also recorded the State counsel’s statement that the fourth appellant would be bound by the first appellant’s signature, and that the first respondent signed for herself and for the minor.
What the Court Actually Held
- Until Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 is notified, a mediated settlement is not enforceable as a court decree, so a judicial order is required.
- It is desirable that Sections 19(1) and 27 and other important provisions of the Act be notified at the earliest.
- A government, company or other juridical person must send a natural person with a written mandate and authority to decide and sign at mediation.
- The appeal was disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 2 November 2026, which forms part of the judgment; a decree is to be drawn up, with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It explains a practical gap in India’s new mediation law that affects every litigant who settles through mediation.
- It addresses a common cause of failed mediations with the government: officers attending without authority to settle.
- The Bench marked the judgment reportable because of these two points on mediation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Litigants
- After a successful mediation in a pending case, ask the court to record the settlement and draw up a decree.
- Insist that the government or company side sends an officer with written authority to settle.
For Counsel
- Place the written mandates of representatives before the Mediator and the Court.
- Record in the signature blocks the designation and capacity of each signatory.
Key Takeaways
- Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 is not yet in force.
- Mediated settlements need a court order to be enforced as decrees.
- Entities must send authorised natural persons to mediation.
- Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a mediation settlement enforceable like a court decree?
Under Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 it would be, but the Manipur High Court noted that Section 27 has not yet been brought into force, so a judicial order is still needed.
How much of the Mediation Act, 2023 is in force?
According to the judgment, 21 of its 65 sections took effect on 9 October 2023.
Who should represent the government at mediation?
A natural person with a written mandate and authority to decide and sign the settlement.
Conclusion
The judgment is a short but useful guide to the current state of mediation law and a nudge to the executive to bring the rest of the Mediation Act into force.
Practical takeaway: Until Section 27 is notified, treat a mediated settlement in a pending case as incomplete until the court records it and a decree is drawn up.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com