Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hakim Uddin, S/o. Lt. Nober Uddin – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim regarding absence during settlement (Para 4) |
| 2. finality and binding nature of lok adalat awards (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on authority and representation during settlement (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. requirement for presence and authorization in lok adalat (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's decision to interfere with lok adalat order (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Heard Shri JK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
2. Considering the issue involved, the presence of respondent no.2 for adjudication of this proceeding may not be necessary. This Court has also noted that pursuant to earlier orders passed by this Court, the records of the learned Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short Commission) have been requisitioned and placed before this Court.
3. The short question which has arisen for determination is whether a settlement can be arrived at in a National Lok Adalat in the absence of a party and only with the presence of the learned counsel for the said party.
4. As per the facts projected, the learned Commission was seized with an appeal against
A valid settlement in a National Lok Adalat necessitates the presence and consent of all parties involved, as their absence undermines the settlement's legitimacy.
A valid settlement in a National Lok Adalat requires the presence of parties and their free consent; without an authorized representative, such settlements are invalid.
An award by a Lok Adalat requires explicit consent from all parties involved; absence of such consent renders the award invalid and unenforceable.
The court established that a valid reference to Lok Adalat is mandatory for its jurisdiction, and failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any award made.
A writ petition challenging a compromise decree entered before Lok Adalat by non-impleaded necessary parties is maintainable due to allegations of fraud and procedural irregularity.
The award of a Lok Adalat is final and binding unless challenged on clearly established grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation, as per the Legal Services Authorities Act.
The settlement cannot be enforced until an award is passed in terms of the Legal Services Authorities Act, and the proceedings before the Lok Adalat should not prejudice the mind of the Court determi....
Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between parties before Lok Adalat, matter has to be returned to Court from where matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
