LexK.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON versus C.D. SHAJI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 447 K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI (Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2011) NOVEMBER 28, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - s. 21 - Interpretation of - When a criminal case filed uls. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, referred to by the Magistrate c Court to Lok Ada/at is settled by the parties and an· award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable - Held: In view of the unambiguous language of s.21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Ada/at shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court D and as such it is executable by that Court - The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court ana criminal court - There is no restriction on the power 1 of the Lok Ada/at to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases E referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressa/ Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature - Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok F Ada/at based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court- Negotiable Instruments · Act, 1881- s.138. An important question as to the interpretation of G Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act; 1987 arose for consideration in the instant appeal. The question posed was that when a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the· Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 447 H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A referred to by the Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 empowers Legal Services Authorities at Lhe District, State and National levels, and the different committees to organize Lok Adalats to resolve pending and pre-litigation c disputes. It provides for permanent Lok Adalats to settle disputes involving public utility services. Under the Act, "legal services" have a meaning that includes rendering of service in the conduct of any court-annexed proceedings or proceedings before any authority, tribunal o and so on, and giving advice on legal matters. The Act provides for a machinery to ensure access to justice to all through the institutions of legal services authorities and committees. These\institutions are manned by Judges and judicial officers. Parliament entrusted the E judiciary with the task of implementing the provisions of the Act. [Para 7] [454-G-H; 455-A-E] 1.2. Section 21 of the Act contemplates a deeming provision, hence, it is a legal fiction that the "award" of the Lok Adalat is a decree of a civil court. In the case on F hand, the Courts below erred in holding that only if the matter was one which was referred by a civil court it could be a decree and if the matter was referred by a criminal court it will only be an order of the criminal court and not a decree under Section 21 of the Act. The Act does not G make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. There is no restriction on the· power of Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in a case referred by a criminal court under Section 138 H of the N.I. Act, and by virtue of the deeming provision it K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 449 has to be treated as a decre~ capable of execution by a A civil court. [Paras 8, 14] [45.,-F; 460-G-H; 461-A-B] 1.3. The "award" of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an 8 administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. [Para 15] [461- C-D] c 1.4. In conclusion, the following propositions emerge: a) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be o cleeme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.