Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 21 — Interpretation of — Held:-

 

 1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court.

 

 2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.

 

 3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.

 

 4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 21 — ”Award” of the Lok Adalat is a decree of a civil court.

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 21 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 — When a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 referred to by the Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable? — Held,  yes.

 
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 21 — When a settlement takes place before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat award is also deemed to be a decree of the civil court and executable as such under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 

 
Friday, March 14, 2008
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — Power and jurisdiction of Lok Adalat — Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions — Their functions relate purely to conciliation — A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement — When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law — No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a court does — It discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement — In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play — When the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat — The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process — The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.  

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — Lok Adalat — Functioning of — Many sitting or retired Judges, while participating in Lok Adalats as members, tend to conduct Lok Adalats like courts, by hearing parties, and imposing their views as to what is just and equitable, on the parties — Sometimes they get carried away and proceed to pass orders on merits, as in this case, even though there is no consensus or settlement — Such acts, instead of fostering alternative dispute resolution through Lok Adalats, will drive the litigants away from Lok Adalats — Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of Judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators — The endeavour and effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strength and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims.

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — Award — In the present case, the order of the Lok Adalat was not passed by consent of parties or in pursuance of any compromise or settlement between the parties, is evident from its observation that "if the parties object to the proposed order they may move the High Court within two months for disposal of the appeal on merits according to law" — Held, such an order is not an award of the Lok Adalat — Being contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat, it is void in the eye of law — Such orders which "impose" the views of the Lok Adalats on the parties, whatever be the good intention behind them, bring a bad name to Lok Adalats and legal services.

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 — Award — Challenge — Held, it is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court — If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds — But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat — The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise — High Court has to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.  

 
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 6(2) — Appointment of Chairman — Held, normal rule is that a sitting Judge of the High Court should be appointed as the Chairman and only when unusual difficulties exists, a retired Judge of the High Court may be appointed — That has to be the exception and not the rule.

 
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 6(2) — State Legal Services Authority — Appointment of Chairman — Some of the State Governments have asked for panel of names to be given — Calling for such panel in essence results in substitution of objectivity with subjectivity — This is to be avoided.

 
Friday, January 12, 2007
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 20, sub-sections (3) and (5) — If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. 

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.