The Supreme Courtroom noticed that an award handed by the Lok Adalat below the Authorized Providers Authorities Act, 1987 (“LSA”) can’t be put aside or annulled by the Executing Courtroom. The correct avenue for difficult the award can be to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction below Article 227 of the Structure, the Courtroom stated.
“The precept that emerges is that the statutory finality connected to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil treatment in opposition to the award handled as a decree. The award could also be executed as a decree, however its validity can’t be reopened by means of an unusual civil swimsuit or by treating another civil continuing as a automobile for setting it apart. The one recognised avenue of problem is the constitutional jurisdiction of the Excessive Courtroom, which is supervisory and distinctive in nature.”, noticed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, whereas setting apart the MP Excessive Courtroom’s choice refusing to entertain his writ petition difficult a compromise decree handed by the Jabalpur Lok Adalat.
The Excessive Courtroom dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on the bottom he had already filed objections below Order XXI Rule 101 CPC earlier than the Executing Courtroom.
Calling the Excessive Courtroom’s strategy misguided, the Courtroom noticed:
“the strategy of the Excessive Courtroom within the current case can’t be sustained. As soon as the decree which is sought to be executed is one which merely embodies a Lok Adalat award below the LSA Act, the function of the Executing Courtroom is confined to giving impact to that award by way of execution. It has no authority to annul or put aside the award itself, or the decree drawn in its phrases, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise on which the Lok Adalat proceeded. Treating the submitting of objections in such execution as an “efficacious different treatment” for difficult the award is subsequently inconsistent with the statutory scheme.”
Remanding the case again to the Excessive Courtroom, the Courtroom stated that when the award is handed by the Lok Adalat, no room for unusual civil cures lies, and the one treatment is to file a Writ Petition earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
“We’re subsequently of the thought of view that the writ petition filed by the appellant to assail the Lok Adalat decree dated 14.05.2022 was maintainable and that the Excessive Courtroom was not justified in declining to look at it on the bottom of an alleged different treatment in execution.”, the court docket held.
Appearances :
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar Sr Adv, Mr. Siddharth R Gupta Adv, Mr. Sankalp Kochar Adv, Mr. Siddhant Kochar Adv, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar AOR, Mr. Aman Agarwal Adv, Mr. Uddaish Palya Adv, Mr. Aditya Sidhra Adv, Ms. Surbhi Saxena Adv, Mr. Siddharth Sahu Adv, Ms. Astha Singh Adv, Mr. Nr Shwetabh Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava Sr Adv, Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava AOR, Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava Adv, Mr. Malik Arjun Khare Adv, Ms. Shruti Verma Adv, Ms. Ananya Sahu Adv, Mr. Boudhik Garg Adv, Mr. Shashank S Dwivedi Adv, Mr. Atharva Joshi Adv, Ms. Kavya Verma Adv, Mr. Pallav Sishodiya Sr Adv, Mr. Kunal Verma AOR, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha Adv, Ms. Yasha Goyal Adv, Ms. Swati Mishra Adv, Mr. A Ok Sanghi Sr Adv, Mr. V Sridhar Reddy Adv, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta AOR, Mr. Hardeep Adv, Mr. Deepak Bahl Adv
Trigger Title: DILIP MEHTA VERSUS RAKESH GUPTA & ORS.
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1188
Leave a Reply