Now-a-days, with the rapid increase in the economic development of a nation has resulted into the great increase in the commercial dispute as well. As a result, the alternative dispute resolution mechanism including arbitration and conciliation have become more crucial for businesses operating in India as well as for those who does their business with Indian firms. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on international commercial arbitration and conciliation. Whereas, the term Conciliation is not defined in this Act. The term Conciliation defined as, it is a method of resolving the dispute, wherein an independent person helps the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement. In other word, Conciliation is a process in which the parties to the dispute, with the assistance of a dispute resolution practitioner (the Conciliator), identify the issues in dispute, consider alternatives to reach an agreement. While on the other hand, Arbitration is a dispute settlement process in which an impartial third party is appointed to study the dispute and to arrive at a decision by hearing both of the parties. This case commentary intends to analyse history of this dispute, its ramifications, the merit it has and also the flaws it creates in Indian legal discourse. As the judgement of Mysore Cements Ltd. v. Svedala Barmac Ltd. (in appeal) by Supreme Court of India is the cornerstone to the very tryst between the pragmatism of going Indian Legislature and the morality of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being protected by the judiciary. The methodology used in this case comment is ‘Doctrinal research methodology’.