Whether the court can redetermine compensation U/Sec 28A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 based on award of Lok Adalat?

 An Award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the Court for adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes the garb of an Award which in turn is again deemed to be a decree without anything more. We would think that it may not be legislative intention to treat such an award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act to be equivalent to an award of the Court which is defined in the Act as already noted by us and made under Part III of the Act. An award of the Court in Section 28A is also treated as a decree. Such an Award becomes executable. It is also appealable. Part III of the Act contains a definite scheme which necessarily involves adjudication by the Court and arriving at the compensation. It is this which can form the basis for any others pressing claim under the same notification by invoking Section 28A. We cannot be entirely oblivious to the prospect of an ‘unholy’ compromise in a matter of this nature forming the basis for redetermination as a matter of right given under Section 28A. {Para 48}

49. We would, therefore, approve the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure (supra) and the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Vasudave (supra) and hold that an Award passed under Section (20) of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A.

50. As far as the argument of the respondents that the award dated 12.3.2016 can be treated as the order of the Court within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act read with Section 28A of the Act, we are of the view such an argument cannot be accepted.

                                   Supreme Court

JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) Vs. YUNUS & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.901 OF 2022

3rd February 2022

Author: K. M. JOSEPH, J.

Citation: 2022 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 121

Print Page

Question and answer on law(Part 2)

1) What is purpose of  levy of court fees?
a) To meet huge expenditure of administration of justice.
b) To curb increasing tendency to file frivolous,false or malicious cases in court.
c) To ensure collection of revenue.

2) Whether there is any provision in legal services authorities Act about court fees?

S 21 of Legal services authorities Act:- Award of Lok Adalat.- (1) Every award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-Fee Act, 1870 (7 of 1870)

Print Page

Whether litigant who settles case in Lok Adalat is entitled to get refund of 100% Court Fees?

 For the reasons which we have recorded, we are of the view that
subSection
(1) of Section 21 is a case of legislation by incorporation.
Therefore, provisions of Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act will
have to be read in into subSection
(1) of Section 21 of the 1987 Act.
To conclude, Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act stands
incorporated in subSection
(1) of Section 21 of the said Act of 1987
and, therefore, when a civil suit is referred to a Lok Adalat which ends
with an Award of the Lok Adalat, the plaintiff is entitled to 100% refund
of Court fees paid in the said suit. Thus, a defendant who files a
counter claim in the suit is entitled to 100% refund of the Court fees
paid on a counter claim which is settled before a Lok Adalat.

Therefore, in the three cases in hand, the learned Trial Judge was not
justified in calling upon the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount of
Court fees out of the refund amount paid to the petitioner. Hence, we
dispose of the petitions by passing the following order :ORDER
(i) We hold and declare that petitioners being plaintiffs in the
suits settled before the Lok Adalat held under the Legal Service
Authority Act, 1987 are entitled to 100% refund of Court fees.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9864 OF 2017

Maharishi Shankarrao MohitePatil Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd,  v/s. The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : A.S. OKA &
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
DATED : 2nd APRIL, 2019
 (Per A.S. Oka, J.)
Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 175,AIR 2019(NOC) 821 Bom

Print Page

Whether agreement entered in mediation can be used as evidence in criminal case?

 Then, the question is whether the agreement entered into between the parties in a mediation can be treated as evidence in a criminal matter. It may be mentioned here, unless the agreement is accepted by the court and a decree is passed under Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w O. 23 R. 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, that will have no effect, unless that has been converted into a conciliation agreement based on which an award is passed by the Conciliator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Further, it is the cardinal principle in the mediation that whatever transpired in the mediation cannot be disclosed even before the court of law and that cannot be called upon to be produced as evidence as well as it will affect the confidentiality of the things transpired in the process of mediation. So the party who did not honour the settlement which was effected in the process of mediation, then, is not entitled to use the same as evidence before the court and agreement also cannot be marked in evidence as it has no legal effect unless it is accepted by the court and a decree is passed under Section 89 r/w O. 23 R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, That cannot be possible in a Criminal Court. Further even if the party had agreed to settle the matter for a lesser amount than the amount mentioned in the cheque in the mediation, it cannot be said that, that was the amount payable as in the mediation, parties can forgo so many things for the purpose of achieving harmony between the parties and restore their relationship. So the amounts arrived in a mediation also cannot be used as evidence for coming to the conclusion that the amount mentioned in the cheque is not the real amount due, and the complainant is not entitled to maintain the action on the basis of that cheque. The court has to allow the parties to adduce evidence ignoring the mediation agreement and dispose of the case on the basis of evidence adduced by parties as it should not be put in evidence in view of the bar under rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Disputes Resolution) Rules Kerala 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. No. 1864 of 2014

Decided On: 10.07.2014

 Sreelal  Vs.  Murali Menon

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

Print Page