TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows. Third respondent firm was constituted on 29.6.1997 with respondents 1, 2 and 4 as its partners. The said partnership was reconstituted with effect from 01.4.2003 when respondents 1 and 2 withdrew from the firm and petitioners were taken as partners with fourth respondent as Managing Partner. The firm obtained lease of a vacant site situated at street No. 21, on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,760/- for the purpose of stockyard. The said site belongs to first respondent and his brothers. On 03.5.2008 respondents 1 and 2 produced proceedings in E.P. No. 1 of 2008 of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, seeking delivery of possession of said site. On enquiries, petitioners came to know that Lok Adalat passed award on 07.2.2004, that without authority fourth respondent entered into compromise agreeing to vacate the stockyard by 31.3.2008 and Lok Adalat award is for dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts. Petitioners then filed an application being E.A. No. 25 of 2008 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for setting aside the award of Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 1 of 2004. The Court of Additional District Judge dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same should be handed over after expiry of the time. In the mean time, petitioners entered as partners of third respondent whose business is flourishing. As their business grew in stockyard, they hatched a plan to dishonour the award and when possession was to be taken, writ petition was filed making false and frivolous allegations. The date 01.4.2003 was entered on stamp papers purchased in the name of the firm in 2001. Fourth respondent made alterations in Form V saying that dissolution is with effect from 31.3.2003 and till the date of passing of the award, respondents 1 and 2 are continuing business and at no point of time, petitioners were concerned with the business of third respondent firm. Petitioners having availed remedy by filing E.A. No. 25 of 2008 cannot question the Lok Adalat award by filing writ petition. The answering respondents obtained certificate from the District Registrar on 08.6.2009 according to which third respondent is not registered from 01.1.2003 to 30.4.2004. To the same effect Assistant Commercial Tax Officer also issued certificate stating that answering respondents continued as partners from 01.4.2003 to 31.3.2004. Answering respondents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition for redressal of grievance and issue an appropriate order ex debito justitiae. Therefore, in either of the situations or any such other situations, a writ petition would lie. Who can file writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat Award 8. The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for award of Lok Adalat, no doubt entitled to challenge the award on any of the grounds referred to herein above grounds. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition even if such award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to legal character or any right as to any property, may file a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, we do not see any object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley, compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy . As per Bouvier it is an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree upon . The word compromise implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. (See NFU Development Trust Ltd., Re (2) (1973) 1 All ER 135 : (1972) 1 WLR 1548 (Ch D)). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. Settlement is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. 10. In State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008) 3 SCC 660 : 2008 (2) ALT 1 (SC) : 2008 (2) SCJ 95, the wife and son of Amarjit Kaur, who died in a motor accident, filed petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. An award was passed by MACT on 01.12.1998 for Rs. 1,44,000/-. The claimants filed appeal before High Court, which was referred to High Court Lok Adalat for settlement. On 03.8.2001, Lok Adalat passed an order awarding Rs. 1,70,200/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement. 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 the principles of justice, equity and 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n produced (sic. purchased) by third respondent firm on 27.3.2001 long prior to disputes arose among respondents 1 to 4. This creates any amount of doubt on the case put up by petitioners. This doubt becomes strong when we realised that the petitioners 1 to 3 are stepmother, wife and grandfather respectively of fourth respondent and they are all living under the same roof. The allegation made by respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit remains uncontroverted. These lend support to the submissions made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and we do not see strong reasons to discredit those submissions. 14. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that Form V was interpolated by fourth respondent by inserting that the firm has been dissolved with effect from 31.3.2003. According to them, the date has been interpolated. When the said Form V was signed on 07.2.2004 by respondents 1 and 2, it is quite improbable that they would have agreed for dissolution of third respondent with effect from 31.3.2003 or they would have agreed for reconstitution of firm with petitioners as new partners. Respondents obtained certificate from the District Registrar, Kurnool, on 08.6.2009 as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
