B.P. MOIDEEN SEVAMANDIR & ANR versus A.M. KUTTY HASSAN

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 905 
...... 
B.P. MOIDEEN SEVAMANDIR & ANR 
A 
. ..;,.._--¥ 
v. 
AM. KUTTY HASSAN 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7282-7283 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 12, 2008 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987: 
S.20(5) - Matter returned by Lok Ada/at for failure of 
settlement between parties - HELD: The section statutorily c 
recognizes the right of a party, whose case is not settled before 
Lok Ada/at, to have his case continued before court and have 
a decision on merits irrespective of his behaviour before Lok 
Ada/at - In the instant case, refusal of a short adjournment 
to the counsel and dismissal of second appeal by High Court D 
on the ground that his client was cantankerous and 
~ 
unreasonable before Lok Ada/at, was erroneous - Reference 
' 
of cases to Lok Ada/at - Mechanical reference to unsuited 
mode of ADR process may be counter - productive - Lok 
Adalats should desist from finding fault with any particular 
E 
litigant or making a record of the conduct of any litigant during 
negotiations, in the failure report submitted to court - Practice 
and Procedure - Adjournments - Lok Ada/at. 
Lok Ada/at: 
Procedure for and functioning of Lok Adalats - Court F 
~- ' 
observed that there is no fixed procedure for Lok Adalats -
National Legal Services Authority should issue uniform 
guidelines for effective functioning of Lok Adalats - Till the 
uniform guidelines are issued, principles underlying ss. 67, 75 
and 86 in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may also G 
be treated as guidelines to members of Lok Adalats. 
Words and Phrases: 
-t 
'Award' in the context of minutes of a proceeding recorded 
by Lok Ada/at - Connotation of. 
905 
H 
" 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
A second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration 
and mandatory injunction was referred to Lok Adalat. The 
~ 
latter .by its order dated 25.5.2007, which was termed as 
'award', indicated that parties had settled the dispute, and 
giving certain directions to the parties, asked them to 
B draw a compromise deed and file the same before the 
High Court. The parties 'could not settle the dispute and 
a second reference was made to the Lok Adalat, which 
submitted its failure report dated 3.4.2008 observing, 
"considering the nature of demand made by the 
"i' 
c appellants, there is no chance of settlement". When the 
second appeal was listed for hearing before the High 
Court, a request on behalf of the counsel appearing for 
the appellants, expressing her personal inconvenience 
was made to adjourn the case for the next day. The single 
Judge, by his order dated 19.8.2008, rejected the prayer 
D and dismissed the appeal for default. The following day, 
an application for restoration supported by an affidavit of 
the counsel was filed but the same was dismissed by 
order dated 29.8.2008 making certain comments on the 
conduct of the appellants before the Lok Adalat. The 
E orders dated 19.8.2008 and 29.8.2008 were chalfenged in 
the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 20(5) of the Legal Services 
Authority Act, 1987 statutorily recognizes the right of a 
F party, whose case is not settled before the Lok Adalat, to 
have his case continued before the court and have a 
decision on merits. The conduct of the party before the 
Lok Adalat or other ADR fora, howsoever stubborn or 
unreasonable, is totally irrelevant. To d~·ny hearing to a 
G party on the ground that his behaviour before the Lok 
Adalat was cantankerous or unreasonable would amount 
to denial of justice and will_ violate the inviolable 
guarantee against prejudice or bias ,in decision making 
-+ 
I 
process. In the instant case, the High Court erred in 
H observing that the parties having arrived at a settlement 
·-
.-
-
8.P. MOIDEEN SEVAMANDIR & ANR v. A.M. KUTTY 
HASSAN 
~07 
before the Lok Adalat, could not refuse to file a 'A 
compromise petition in court. [Paras 14 and 15] [915-G-
D-E-H; 916-A-B-E] 
1.2. When a counsel who is ready in the pre-lunch 
session, seeks accommodation in the post-lunch session 
on the ground of a sudden illness or physical ailment, the 
B 
court cannot refuse a short accommodation and dismiss 
the appeal on the ground that his client was 
cantankerous and unreasonable before the Lok Adalat. 
The two issu~s have no relation to each other and such 
dismissal can only be attributed to prejudice. [Para 15] 
C 
[916-D-E] 
. 
1.3. The orders of the High Court are set aside.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.