ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.12.2011 recoding the settlement in Lok Adalat marked as Annexure-C passed by XIACMM Bangalore in CC No.24453/2011 to the writ petition.

ii. Quash the order dated 14.2.2014 and the entire proceedings in Execution Case No.2186/2012 pending on the file of the 19th Addl. City Civil Judge, CCH 18, Bangalore, marked as Annexure-

D to the Writ Petition.

iii. Grant such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated and registered with the Registrar of Companies, the petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of Petitioner No.1. The respondent is the complainant in PCR No.16559/2011 filed against the petitioners herein under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A sworn statement being recorded, Magistrate having taken cognizance on 28.11.2023 issued summons to the petitioner. Subsequently, thereto, the petitioners entered appearance.

3. A memo was filed by the complainant wherein the petitioners have acknowledged the debts and agreed/ undertaken to make payment of due amount with 24% interest per annum in monthly instalments. Subsequent thereto, the matter was adjourned, and in Lok Adalat, a joint memo was filed and accepted vide order dated 22.12.2011, recording that after negotiation, the matter was settled for the cheque amount with interest at 24% per annum.

4. The first instalment agreed to be paid on

17.12.2012; the entire amount covered by the cheque was directed to be paid as compensation in terms of section 357 of the CR.P.C. in default thereof, the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. The complainant thereafter filed an execution proceeding in Ex.No.2186/2012 seeking for the execution of the order, in pursuance of which a attachment warrant of movables was issued, it is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. The submission of Sri.Rohan Tigadi., learned counsel for the petitioners is that;

6.1. The Magistrate has converted himself to the Lok Adalat which is not permissible. The Magistrate has passed an adjudicatory order which is also not permissible. In pursuance thereof, the execution proceedings in Ex.No.2186/2012 could not have been filed.

6.2. The execution court has not taken into consideration, the submissions of the petitioners that the Lok Adalat has not passed an award as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and as such same could not be executed.

6.3. The execution Court has without considering the objections, held the execution petition to be maintainable and the award executable which is not sustainable. If the execution Court had taken into consideration, the aspect in the proper prospective the impugned order could not have been passed.

6.4. A settlement was arrived at due to the panic created by the complainant and his father, who is a practising advocate. The said father had represented the petitioners in CC No.20105/2010, CC No.20107/2010 without disclosing his interest, the complaint having been filed against the said father before the Bar counsel, no action has been taken.

6.5. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, certain proceedings have been taken up before the NCLT, Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Thereafter a Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed, it was therefore for the petitioner to have placed any claim before the RP and for the RP to have adjudicated the claim.

6.6. The rehabilitation of the company not having gone through winding up proceedings having been initiated, there is a recommendation for winding up, the sustainability and revival of the company has been taken into consideration on the basis of the claims which had been filed before the Li