Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005
Learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the petitioner mainly
contended that the Court cannot set-aside the award at any cost, when the
award was passed with the consent of both the parties and placed reliance
on Supreme Court in P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (referred supra),
wherein the Apex Court held that once the award is passed, the same can
be set-aside by any Court in view of the provisions contained under the Act
and concluded that investigation into questions of fact and appraisal of
evidence is not contemplated before the Lok Adalat. In the facts of the
above judgment, decree holder had expressed his readiness and
willingness to deposit amount as per award and got the sale deed
executed. But the High Court misunderstood the award, though it was
obligation of the respondent to evince his willingness to execute the sale
deed within two years and not vice versa and there was already a decree of
ejectment against him and the settlement was a concession in favour of
the respondent to give vacant possession. Therefore, the Court upheld the
award as it is a concession to eject the petitioner from possession of the
petitioner and based on the facts the Apex Court held as follows:
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Jalour Singh & Ors on 18 January, 2008
Thus, in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
Punjab v. Jalour Singh (referred supra) and reiterated in Bharvagi
Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (referred supra), the
aggrieved person can approach the High Court questioning the award on
limited grounds. Hence, the contention of the first respondent is rejected,
while upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to
the limited extent of maintainability of writ petition questioning the award.
Though we find that the writ petition is maintainable, the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case lead us to conclude that the parties and
their counsel have signed on the award and other material papers,
including compromise petition and the signature was not denied by the
petitioner anywhere. In those circumstances, this Court shall not
encourage such unscrupulous litigants having entered into compromise
and resiled from compromise at later stage. However, it is left open to the
parties to raise such contentions by approaching the High Court, the very
purpose of settlement before Lok Adalat and establishing Legal Services
Authority would be frustrated. Therefore, to avoid such multiplicity of
HACJ & MSM,J
13 WP_37428_ 2018
litigation, more particularly, when the parties failed to establish that the
award was obtained by playing fraud or by misrepresentation or exercising
undue influence or coercion, the Court cannot normally interfere with the
award passed by the 1st respondent. Hence, we find no merit in the writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Section 21 in The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Rajeswary vs Sooraj on 29 November, 2005
Applying the same principle in the above judgment, Kerala High
Court reiterated the same principle in Rajeswary v. Sooraj (referred
supra).