OBSERVER’S REPORT: MOCK MEDIATION

Submitted by:

Sanya Maan

Group C

PRN-21010223043

Batch: 2021-26

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pun

In March, 2026

Under the guidance of

Mr. Abhishek Kaushik

1
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE.............................................................................................3

2. CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF MEDIATION STAGES...........................................................3
2.1 Pre-Session Arrangements and Seating.................................................................................3
2.2 Opening Statement by the Mediator.....................................................................................4
2.3 Opening Statements by the Parties.......................................................................................4
2.4 Issue Identification and Agenda Setting................................................................................4
2.5 The Negotiation Stage..........................................................................................................5
2.6 Closing Session.....................................................................................................................5
3. POSITIVE ELEMENTS IN THE MEDIATOR’S PROCESS MANAGEMENT-...........................................6
3.1 Maintenance of Neutrality....................................................................................................6
3.2 Use of Private Caucuses........................................................................................................6
3.3 Future-Oriented Framing......................................................................................................6
3.4 Concluding the Session Constructively..................................................................................6
4. WEAKNESSES AND GAPS IN THE PROCESS.............................................................................6
4.1 Inadequate Preparation and Fact Fluency.............................................................................6
4.2 Delayed Entry into Interests..................................................................................................7
4.3 Imbalanced Time Allocation..................................................................................................7
4.4 Settlement Discussion Commenced Too Late........................................................................7
4.5 Limited Active Listening Techniques......................................................................................7
5. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: HOW I WOULD HAVE HANDLED THIS DIFFERENTLY.............................7
6. REFLECTION: WAS I ABLE TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY WHEN I WAS MEDIATOR?...............................8
7. KEY LEARNINGS ABOUT MEDIATION PRACTICE.......................................................................9
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................9

2
 OBSERVER’S REPORT: MOCK MEDIATION ROUND 8
Rohit Mehra v. M/s BlueNest Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Subject Matter Delay in Possession of Residential Apartment

Mediation Round Round 8
Observer Sanya Maan
Mediator in This Round Rudrakshi
Plaintiff Shristi (Rohit Mehra)
Defendant Riya M (BlueNest Constructions Pvt. Ltd.)
Counsel for Plaintiff Riya B, Sahaj
Counsel for Defendant Saransh, Shaurya

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

The dispute before the mediation panel in Round 8 arose from a straightforward yet
emotionally charged real estate transaction that had gone significantly awry. Mr. Rohit
Mehra, a self-employed architect based in Noida, entered into an Apartment Buyer
Agreement on 15 March 2021 with M/s BlueNest Constructions Pvt. Ltd., a Gurugram-based
real estate developer, for the purchase of Flat No. B-1204, a 3-BHK unit in the “BlueNest
Residency” project in Sector 150, Noida. The agreed sale consideration stood at ₹1.25 crores,
with a contractual possession date of 30 June 2023, subject to a six-month grace period.
Mr. Mehra discharged close to ₹1.10 crores, roughly ninety percent of the total consideration
through a combination of personal savings and housing loan disbursements. Yet, as of the
date of mediation, possession had not been handed over. The tower remained incomplete, the
Occupancy Certificate had not been obtained, and essential amenities including lifts, fire
safety systems, and water supply infrastructure were non-functional. Meanwhile, Mr. Mehra
continued to shoulder an EMI burden of ₹85,000 per month alongside expenditure on
alternate rental accommodation a double financial strain that had evidently begun to take a
serious toll.
BlueNest Constructions, for its part, did not deny the delay but attributed it to pandemic-
related disruptions, acute labour shortages during the post-COVID recovery period, and
bottlenecks in regulatory approvals. The company maintained that construction was
substantially complete and that possession would be handed over within the next four
months. It firmly resisted the idea of a full refund, citing both cash flow constraints and the
concern that acceding to one exit demand could precipitate a chain of similar requests from
other buyers.
Both parties had, prior to this mediation, exchanged legal notices and replies. Mr. Mehra’s
notice dated 10 October 2024 demanded either immediate possession with delay
compensation or a full refund with interest. BlueNest replied on 28 October 2024, expressing
willingness to negotiate but refusing to refund. Having agreed not to initiate litigation
immediately, both sides consented to voluntary, confidential mediation bringing the matter to
the present session.

2. CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF MEDIATION STAGES

2.1 Pre-Session Arrangements and Seating

3
Before the formal commencement of proceedings, the mediator , Rudrakshi ensured that the
physical arrangement of the room was neutral. Parties and their respective counsel were
seated on opposite sides of the table with the mediator occupying the head position, as is
standard practice to project impartiality. This spatial arrangement, while seemingly a minor
logistical detail, carries considerable symbolic weight in mediation it signals from the very
outset that neither party holds a positional advantage.

2.2 Opening Statement by the Mediator

Rudrakshi opened the session with a structured introductory statement. She introduced herself
as the neutral facilitator, clarified that she held no adjudicatory power, and emphasised that
her role was solely to assist the parties in arriving at a mutually acceptable resolution. She
proceeded to explain the ground rules: one speaker at a time, no interruptions, respectful
language, and the absolute confidentiality of all statements made within the session. She also
reminded both parties that any concessions or admissions made during mediation could not
be used against them in subsequent legal proceedings.
This opening was competently delivered. The mediator demonstrated adequate command
over procedural protocol and set a tone of measured professionalism. However, as will be
examined later, the opening lacked a crucial element, a brief recapitulation of the factual
background, which would have helped orient the parties and signal to them that the mediator
had done her homework.

2.3 Opening Statements by the Parties

Both parties were then invited to present their opening statements without interruption. The
plaintiff’s counsel opened on behalf of Mr. Mehra. The statement was structured around three
central grievances: the contractual breach of the agreed possession date, the continuing
financial injury from dual housing costs, and the erosion of trust caused by repeated,
unfulfilled promises from the developer. The tone was assertive but not overtly combative,
which was appropriate for the context.
The defendant’s counsel, representing BlueNest Constructions, followed with a response that
acknowledged the delay while framing it as an industry-wide consequence of the pandemic
rather than a failure of intent or commitment. The statement emphasised the near-completion
status of the project and the developer’s willingness to resolve the matter without resort to
litigation. Importantly, the counsel was careful to avoid any explicit admission of fault, a
legally defensive posture that, while understandable, contributed to the trust deficit already
palpable in the room.
From an observer’s standpoint, these opening statements served their primary function
adequately. They put the respective positions on record and gave the mediator a map of
where the conflict was anchored. What was missing, however, was any acknowledgment
from either side of the other’s interests, a missed early opportunity to humanise the dispute.

2.4 Issue Identification and Agenda Setting

Following the opening statements, the mediator attempted to identify and articulate the key
issues in dispute. She listed three broad areas: first, the timeline for possession and what
assurances the developer could realistically offer; second, the question of compensation for
delay and how it should be calculated and structured; and third, alternative remedies,
including possible adjustments to the final payment schedule.

4
This framing was broadly accurate, though it reflected a somewhat surface-level reading of
the dispute. A more perceptive identification of issues would have gone beyond the stated
positions to surface the underlying interests. For instance, Mr. Mehra’s core need was not
simply “compensation” but rather certainty and an end to ambiguity he had been operating in
a state of perpetual uncertainty for over two years and was emotionally exhausted by it.
Similarly, BlueNest’s fundamental concern was not merely to “avoid a refund” but to protect
its reputation and forestall a cascade of exit requests. Had these deeper interests been
surfaced early, the negotiation might have moved along a more productive axis.

2.5 The Negotiation Stage

The negotiation stage formed the longest portion of the session. The mediator employed a
combination of joint session dialogue and two private caucuses one with the plaintiff and his
counsel, and one with the defendant and its counsel. This use of the caucus is a cornerstone of
mediation technique and was, on balance, one of the stronger aspects of the mediator’s
performance in this round.
In the joint session, discussion initially gravitated toward positional bargaining. The
plaintiff’s side anchored heavily on a demand for compensation equivalent to the monthly
EMI amount (₹85,000) for every month of delay since the contractual possession date a
figure that, when calculated across twenty-plus months, ran into significant territory. The
defendant’s counsel countered that no such liability had been contractually stipulated and that
the force majeure clause in the agreement adequately covered pandemic-induced delays. The
exchange became somewhat entrenched.
Recognising this, the mediator called for the first caucus. In the private session with Mr.
Mehra and his counsel, she attempted to separate positions from interests. She asked what a
meaningful resolution would look like for Mr. Mehra beyond the financial dimension a
question that drew out the more human aspects of his grievance. He expressed concern not
just about money, but about the uncertainty of when, and whether, he would actually receive
a habitable home. He spoke about his family’s repeated postponement of moving plans and
the emotional fatigue this had caused. This was important information.
In the second caucus with BlueNest’s team, the mediator probed the developer’s flexibility on
compensation while being careful not to reveal what Mr. Mehra had said. The developer’s
counsel indicated, in guarded terms, that some form of structured compensation perhaps a
waiver of certain charges or a token payment might be within the realm of possibility,
provided it was framed as a “goodwill gesture” rather than an admission of liability.
On returning to the joint session, however, the mediator struggled to translate these private
disclosures into a productive joint dialogue. The transition from caucus back to plenary is one
of the most delicate manoeuvres in mediation, requiring the facilitator to introduce movement
without revealing confidences, and to reframe positions subtly enough that parties do not feel
they have been outmanoeuvred. This bridging function was only partially executed.

2.6 Closing Session

As the session drew toward its close, it became evident that a substantive settlement would
not be reached in this round. The parties remained divided on the quantum of compensation:
the plaintiff’s side would not accept anything below ₹3 lakhs as an interim payment pending
possession, while the defendant refused to acknowledge any quantifiable liability. The
mediator, to her credit, did not attempt to force a settlement or exert pressure on either party
to concede which would have been a clear violation of the mediator’s neutrality obligation.

5
Instead, she facilitated an agreement on procedural next steps. Both parties agreed to: (i) the
developer sharing monthly construction progress reports with Mr. Mehra; and (ii) a reattempt
at mediation within two months, by which time the project was expected to be closer to
completion. While this was not a settlement, it was a meaningful process outcome the parties
left with a structured commitment and an open line of communication, which is considerably
better than a collapsed mediation.

3. POSITIVE ELEMENTS IN THE MEDIATOR’S PROCESS MANAGEMENT-

3.1 Maintenance of Neutrality
The most consistent strength observed in Rudrakshi’s conduct as mediator was her
maintenance of surface-level neutrality. She did not visibly favour either party, did not react
with visible approval or disapproval to the arguments advanced, and distributed speaking
time with reasonable equity. In a scenario where the emotional temperature was perceptibly
elevated particularly on the buyer’s side, this composure was valuable.

3.2 Use of Private Caucuses

The decision to move to private caucuses once positional bargaining became entrenched
reflected sound mediation instinct. Caucuses allow parties to speak more candidly, allow the
mediator to test proposals without exposing either party to premature commitment, and help
break the psychological deadlock that joint sessions can create. Both caucuses were
conducted appropriately, no confidences were breached, and the mediator maintained her
confidentiality obligations throughout.

3.3 Future-Oriented Framing

At several points during the session, the mediator consciously redirected the conversation
from a retrospective blame-focused frame to a prospective problem-solving one. When the
plaintiff’s counsel began enumerating the timeline of the developer’s failures in considerable
historical detail, the mediator gently intervened with a question along the lines of: “I
understand the sequence of events. What would a good resolution look like from your
perspective going forward?” This technique sometimes called “reframing toward the future”
is a fundamental mediation tool, and its deployment here was apt and reasonably well-timed.

3.4 Concluding the Session Constructively

Despite the absence of a final settlement, the mediator did well to close the session on a
constructive note. Rather than declaring an impasse, she reframed the outcome as “progress
toward future resolution” and secured the procedural agreements described above. This
matters because a mediation that ends with both parties agreeing to continue talking is not a
failure it is a foundation.

4. WEAKNESSES AND GAPS IN THE PROCESS

4.1 Inadequate Preparation and Fact Fluency
The most significant structural weakness observed was the mediator’s apparent unfamiliarity
with the granular details of the case. On two occasions, the mediator appeared uncertain
about key factual particulars notably, the exact contractual possession date and the extent of
the grace period under Clause 10 of the agreement. A mediator need not be, and should not
appear to be, an adjudicator; but she must demonstrate that she has absorbed the facts

6
thoroughly enough to steer the conversation intelligently. When a mediator cannot recall
whether the possession deadline was June or December 2023, it subtly undermines the
parties’ confidence in the process.

4.2 Delayed Entry into Interests

The transition from positional to interest-based dialogue came too late in the session. For a
significant portion of the negotiation stage, the conversation remained anchored in stated
demands and refusals, with the mediator allowing the exchange to proceed on positional lines
longer than was optimal. The move to caucuses which is where the interest-exploration
finally occurred should have been triggered earlier. Had the mediator introduced interest-
based questions (“What matters most to you beyond the monetary aspect?”) in the early joint
session itself, the caucuses would have yielded deeper insights and the plenary return might
have been more productive.

4.3 Imbalanced Time Allocation

An observable imbalance in time emerged during the negotiation stage, with the plaintiff’s
side receiving disproportionately more floor time. This may have been a consequence of Mr.
Mehra’s side presenting a more emotionally compelling narrative, which naturally commands
more attention; but the mediator had an obligation to manage this actively. The defendant’s
team, particularly in the later stages of the joint session, appeared to retreat into a defensive
posture that may have been partly a response to feeling less heard. A more attentive facilitator
would have periodically redirected attention with phrases like “I’d like to hear the
developer’s perspective on this specific point” to restore balance.

4.4 Settlement Discussion Commenced Too Late

The structured exploration of possible settlement zones time-bound possession commitments,
compensation waivers, revised payment terms began only in the final quarter of the session,
leaving insufficient time for the parties to genuinely deliberate on concrete proposals. In
hindsight, the mediator could have introduced the concept of a settlement zone much earlier,
perhaps immediately after the first caucus, by presenting a menu of possible outcomes
without attributing them to either party. This technique, sometimes called the “one-text
procedure”, allows parties to react to options rather than having to generate them under
adversarial conditions, and can significantly accelerate movement toward agreement.

4.5 Limited Active Listening Techniques

The mediator relied primarily on verbal summaries to demonstrate that she had understood
each party’s position. While summaries are important, they are only one component of active
listening in a mediation context. Reflective listening where the mediator paraphrases not just
the content but the emotional subtext of what a party has said was largely absent. For
instance, when Mr. Mehra’s counsel described the repeated postponements of his client’s
family moving plans, an experienced mediator would have acknowledged the emotional
dimension explicitly: “It sounds as though the uncertainty itself has been as difficult to bear
as the financial cost.” Such validation does not favour the party; it simply demonstrates that
the mediator has heard them fully, which is often enough to reduce defensiveness and open
space for movement.

5. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: HOW I WOULD HAVE HANDLED THIS

DIFFERENTLY

7
Had I occupied the mediator’s chair in Round 8, my approach would have differed in several
substantive ways, though I acknowledge that the decisions I describe here are easier to
articulate in reflection than they would have been to execute under the pressure of a live
session.
To begin with, I would have opened with a brief but confident recitation of the key facts: the
date of the agreement, the contractual possession deadline, the amount paid, and the current
state of the project. This serves a dual purpose it demonstrates to both parties that the
mediator has engaged seriously with the material, and it establishes a shared factual baseline
from which the conversation can proceed without constant disputes over the record.
More critically, I would have introduced interest-based questioning much earlier in the
process ideally within the first fifteen to twenty minutes of the joint session, before positional
bargaining had a chance to set in. Questions like “Apart from the specific figure you’ve
mentioned, what outcome would allow you to leave today feeling that this process was
worthwhile?” tend to surface the underlying needs that are often more negotiable than the
positions themselves.
I would also have introduced a rough timeline for the session at the outset, allocating explicit
time slots for each phase opening statements, issue framing, caucuses, and settlement
discussion. Transparency about the session structure helps both parties pace themselves and
signals that the process is disciplined rather than open-ended. In my observation, the absence
of a visible time structure in Round 8 contributed to the drift that characterised the middle
portion of the session.
Finally, I would have made more deliberate use of periodic summaries throughout the session
not just at the end. After each substantive exchange, a brief reflective summary (“What I’m
hearing is that both parties want this resolved without going to court, and that there is at least
theoretical agreement that some form of possession assurance is in everyone’s interest”)
serves to consolidate movement, remind parties of what they have already implicitly agreed
upon, and build momentum toward a formal outcome.

6. REFLECTION: WAS I ABLE TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY WHEN I WAS

MEDIATOR?
In the round in which I served as mediator, I found that the gap between theoretical
understanding of mediation technique and actual in-the-moment execution is considerably
wider than it appears on paper. The pressures of managing the room, tracking the
conversation, maintaining neutrality, and simultaneously thinking three moves ahead create a
cognitive load that can crowd out the very instincts one has trained oneself to apply.
In retrospect, I did manage to introduce interest-based questions relatively early which I
consider to have been my strongest moment as mediator. I also kept the session broadly
within its intended time frame and prevented it from collapsing into a bilateral argument.
However, I found myself defaulting to positional summaries when I should have been doing
reflective listening, and I struggled at times to manage the emotional intensity of the
plaintiff’s narrative without appearing to validate it at the defendant’s expense. The skill of
acknowledging emotion without implying moral judgment is, I now understand, something
that comes with extensive practice rather than instruction.
So to directly answer the question: I was able to implement some of what I would have done
differently, but not all of it and the shortfall was instructive. The experience of being in the
chair has made me a sharper observer, because I now watch for the specific moments of
8
hesitation, the missed transitions, and the unrealised interventions that I recognise from my
own performance.

7. KEY LEARNINGS ABOUT MEDIATION PRACTICE

This round, perhaps more than any other in the series, reinforced for me the foundational
principle that mediation is about process, not outcome. The fact that Round 8 did not produce
a settlement is not, in any meaningful sense, a measure of the mediator’s failure. The value of
mediation lies in the quality of engagement it enables: whether both parties felt heard,
whether the real issues were surfaced rather than suppressed, and whether the space created
by the mediation moved the relationship between the parties from antagonism toward at least
a working neutrality.
Several more specific learnings emerged from this observation:
1. Preparation is foundational. A mediator who does not know the facts is navigating in
the dark. The confidence that comes from thorough pre-session preparation cannot be
substituted by good interpersonal skills in the room.
2. Positions are the tip of the iceberg. Virtually every entrenched position in this
mediation concealed a more flexible interest. The mediator’s task is to find the
iceberg beneath the tip and to do so without making either party feel exposed.
3. Timing matters enormously. The same technique a reframing question, a move to
caucus, a settlement zone proposal can be highly effective at one point in a session
and counterproductive at another. Reading the room and knowing when to deploy a
particular intervention is as important as knowing what the intervention is.
4. Emotional acknowledgment is not partisanship. One of the persistent misconceptions
about mediator neutrality is that it requires the mediator to be emotionally blank. In
fact, acknowledging the emotional dimension of a party’s experience without
evaluating it — is one of the most powerful tools available to a mediator, and does
nothing to compromise impartiality.
5. A mediation without settlement is not a failed mediation. The procedural outcomes
achieved in Round 8 continued communication, mutual commitment to transparency,
and agreement to return to mediation — are meaningful and may well be the
foundation on which a final settlement is eventually built. The mediator’s job is to
keep the door open; it is not always within her power to ensure that the parties walk
through it on the first attempt.

CONCLUSION
Round 8 of the Mock Mediation presented a realistic and instructive scenario: a dispute with
genuine emotional stakes, a mediator operating in good faith but with identifiable room for
growth, and parties whose underlying interests were, in fact, more compatible than their
stated positions suggested. As an observer, I was struck most powerfully by how much
depends on the quality of the mediator’s listening not just for the words being said, but for
what lies behind them. The mediator in this round demonstrated several commendable
qualities, particularly in her use of the caucus and in her handling of the session’s conclusion.
Her principal development areas deepening fact fluency, earlier interest exploration, and
more active emotional acknowledgment are all cultivable with practice.

9
The experience of observing this round, combined with the earlier experience of occupying
the mediator’s chair myself, has made it clear to me that mediation is less a skill one learns
and more a practice one develops iteratively, reflectively, and with genuine attention to every
session’s particular human texture. This case, with its interplay of financial grievance, broken
trust, and institutional defensiveness, was an exceptionally rich site for that development.

10