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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 128

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.L.MANJUNATH
H. V. VENKATESH – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates:
CHANDRASHEKAR P.PATIL, HANUMANTHA REDDY SAHUKAR

( 1 ) THE appellant has filed a memo for referring the matter to the Lok adalat. The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that this is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c), submitted that unless all parties agreed, the appeal cannot be referred to Lok Adalat. He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in basappa and Another v Shobha and Others, in particular, the following observations:"none of the parties had filed any application before the Court for referring the matter for settlement before the Lok Adalat. There is also no indication in the order sheet that the learned counsel representing the parties had made any request before the learned Judge for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. . . . A perusal of the order sheet gives an impression that the learned judge had taken the responsibility of getting the matter settled by the parties without there being any request by either of the parties or their learned Counsels. In view of this factual position, in my opinion, the learned Trial Judge could not have referred the matter to the Lok Adalat unless the parties to the lis thereof agree for s











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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top