SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(AP) 825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramlingeswara Rao, J.
Mohd. Aasham Pasha and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
E. Srihari Chary – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 437 of 2015
Decided On : 28-12-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Y. Ashok Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:L. Sridhar, Advocate.

Headnote:

Criminal law - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 320 (8) - Reconciliation - Respondent herein filed an application on before Mandal Legal Services Committee showing petitioners as Opposite Parties seeking to issue a notice to opposite parties for mediation reconciliation and settlement of matter - Main grievance in application is that opposite parties are regular customers of applicant as they have been purchasing raw material of fiber credit bills and having running account with applicant as has been running business under the name and style Fiber Industries - Statement of credit account with applicant verified and accepted by opposite parties was filed said petition was registered as Legal Services Authority - Petitioners herein/opposite parties engaged an advocate - Both parties filed a petition to advance date of hearing from along with petition filed of Criminal Procedure Code seeking permission to compromise case - Held, This Court held that jurisdiction mentioned in cannot be construed in narrow sense to mean territorial jurisdiction only - Since matter relates to guardianship of children District Court alone is having jurisdiction to decide dispute - respondent herein submitted a petition before the Mandal Legal Services Committee under Legal Services Authority Act and it issued a notice to the opposite parties who are petitioners - Even on when parties appeared before it Lok Adalat should have seen whether it has got jurisdiction to pass an award in respect of subject matter of value of lakhs same appears to have not been verified and award was passed - In circumstances award passed by is without jurisdiction and is accordingly set aside - Consequently is held to be not maintainable - Petition allowed (Para 18)

ORDER :

1. The respondent herein filed an application on 19-04-2012 before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at Miyapur under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 showing the petitioners herein as Opposite Parties, seeking to issue a notice to opposite parties for mediation, reconciliation and settlement of the matter. The main grievance in the application is that the opposite parties are the regular customers of the applicant as they have been purchasing raw material of fiber under credit bills and having running account with the applicant as he has been running the business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Laxmi Fiber Industries. The opposite parties are due of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Even though the opposite parties assured that they will clear total dues by 31-03-2012, they failed to keep up their promise. A statement of the credit account with the applicant dated 31-03-2012 verified and accepted by the opposite parties was filed. The said petition was registered as P.L.C.No.5 of 2012 by the Legal Services Authority. The Mandal Legal Services Authority, Kukatpally at Miyapur issued notices to the opposite parties asking them to appear before it on 29-04-2012 at 10.30 a.m. for reconciliation and the said notices were received on 28-04-2012. After receipt of notices in the said petition, the petitioners herein/opposite parties engaged an advocate. Both parties filed a petition on 29-04-2012 to advance the date of hearing from 15-06-2012 to 29-04-2012 along with the petition filed under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compromise the case. The parties also filed a petition to pass an award in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, an award was passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 on 29-04-2012. The terms of the compromise read as follows:

(1) The parties hereto agreed and admit that they had business transactions;

(2) The opposite parties herein hereby admit that they are due and liable to pay a sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs towards credit purchases from the petitioner;

(3) The opposite parties herein agreed to repay the said outstanding amount within 5 years and offered to pay nominal interest thereon;

(4) The applicant herein in order to secure his debt from the opposite parties requested them to submit any security till the payment of due amount;

(5) The opposite parties herein accepted the said proposal and informed that the opposite parties owned some agricultural land in Survey No.109, 134 and 135 total admeasuring Acres 5.11 guntas of Mukal Kalva village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. Further the respondent No.1 owned as residential property bearing H.No.4-2/2, on Plot No.7 part and 8 part in Survey Nos.168/4, 168/5 and 168/9 admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Domarra Pochampally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R. District is consisting of 1600 square feet built up area in ground and first floors each. The opposite parties herein on this day deposited the pattedar pass book of agricultural land along with pahani papers and title deeds i.e. sale deed bearing document No.391 of 2009 dated 20-01-2009 registered with JSRO-I, office of the District Registrar, RR District along with sanctioned plan, property tax receipts with the applicant towards security;

(6) The opposite parties herein agreed to repay the outstanding payment of Rs. 45.00 lakhs along with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. and the said amount will be paid every year Rs. 10,00,000/- and completed on or before 31-03-2017. If the opposite parties failed to pay amount agreed as stated above, the applicant is at liberty to recover the total amount with interest by filing EP before competent court by selling the schedule hereunder properties in order to recover the due amount by executing this award."

2. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an Execution Petition on 22-07-2013 for execution of the award before the Mandal Legal Services Authority. It was













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top