On 23.09.2009, the Principal Munsiff Judge, Ernakulam dismissed the petition holding that the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference from the Magistrate Court cannot be companystrued as a decree executable by the civil companyrt.
923 of 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ petition being Writ Petition C No.
Both the parties were present before the Lok Adalat and as per the award, they agreed for the settlement and accordingly, the petitioner accused agreed to pay Rs.
The learned C.J.J.D., issued a numberice under Order XXVII Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
Aggrieved by which, the petitioners accused preferred appeal in C.S.No.167 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Salem.
33013 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.
On 08.05.2009, both parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled and an award was passed on the same day.
Later, the said criminal case was transferred to Lok Adalat.
It was signed by the respondent companyplainant, petitioners accused and their respective companynsel.
Brief facts The appellant herein filed a companyplaint being C.C. No.
6,000/ , the respondent herein paid Rs.500/ on the same day and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,500/ in five equal instalments of Rs.1,100/ per month on or before the 10th day of every month starting from June, 2009 and, in case of default, the appellant herein can recover the balance amount due from the respondent in lump sum.
Having obtained the award from Lok Adalat, the party is number permitted to resile from the same.
I, Salem on the companyplaint given by the respondent therein that the cheque was issued by the second petitioner therein on behalf of the first petitioner as partner of the firm, however, the same was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds.
3,75,000/ as companypensation to the respondent.
In view of the companypromise arrived at between both the parties, the amount payable was fixed at Rs.
After adverting to Section 20 and other provisions of the Act, the learned single Judge has companycluded thus The parties were fully aware that under the Act, the District Legal Services Authority may explore the possibility of holding pre litigation Lok Adalats in respect of the cheque bouncing cases.
As the respondent did number pay any of the installments as per the settlement, the appellant filed execution petition being P. No of 2009 in C.C. No.
In the instant case, as admitted by both the learned Counsel, there was an award passed in the Lok Adalat, based on the companysensus arrived at between the parties.
The respondent therein filed a Darkhast proceeding No.
By order dated 18.07.2007, the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division disposed off the objection and directed to proceed with the execution by the Judgment and order.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners therein filed a revision before the High Court.
1216 of 2007 before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court No.1, Ernakulam against the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in short the N.I. Act .
According to the respondent, after issuance of the legal numberice to the petitioner, the companyplaint was given under Section 138 of the I. Act against the petitioners.
In that case, on 22.06.2001, the respondent filed a Criminal Complaint being C.C. No.
3,75,000/ to the respondent on or before 03.09.2007.
Having settled the matter in Lok Adalat and number after more than 3 years raising such plea is untenable.
During the pendency of the criminal case, at the request of both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement.
The matter was companypromised before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed accordingly for Rs.
3,75,000/ towards full quit of the claim and that the petitioners therein agreed to pay the above said amount on or before 03.09.2007 and accordingly, the award was passed and placed before the Judicial Magistrate Court for further orders.
4 lakhs.
It attains finality to the dispute between the parties finally and binds all.
1216 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam for seeking the execution of the award.
All objections as raised with regard to the execution in view of above statutory provisions itself is rightly rejected.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition C No.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
When the said award was placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, by judgment dated 17.10.2007, based on the award held that the petitioners therein guilty and companyvicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act, accordingly, imposed sentence of one year simple imprisonment and directed the petitioners therein to pay a sum of Rs.
The companypromise in such cases would be treated as Award having force of a decree.
The Magistrate referred the said companyplaint to the Ernakulam District Legal Service Authority for trying the case for settlement between the parties in the Lok Adalat.
17 of 2006 in the Court of C.J.J.D. for execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat in the criminal case as there was numbercompliance of the companypromised order award.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred criminal revision case before the High Court.
33013 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala.
The petitioner therein raised an objection stating that the Darkhast proceeding is number maintainable as the award has been passed in criminal case.
As per the award, out of Rs.
Against the said order, the appellant filed the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
