Supreme Court: Whether executing court can examine validity of award of Lok Adalat and declare it as null and void?

 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Sections 21 and 22E — Challenge to Lok Adalat Award — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Held, the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy - The validity of such an award cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating execution proceedings as a vehicle for setting it aside - The only recognized avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature - This applies equally to a party to the award and a third party affected by it. [Relied on State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660; Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480; Paras 8-14]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97, 99, and 101 — Powers of Executing Court regarding Lok Adalat Awards — Held, while these provisions enable an Executing Court to address incidental questions during execution (such as the extent of enforceability against a person in possession), they do not authorize the court to examine the validity of the award itself or declare the decree based upon it void - The Executing Court has no authority to annul or set aside a decree that embodies a Lok Adalat award, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise. Filing objections in execution cannot be treated as an "efficacious alternative remedy" that bars writ relief. [Paras 15-19]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

SLP (C) No. 27806 of 2023; 

DILIP MEHTA Vs RAKESH GUPTA & ORS.

Coram: VIKRAM NATH; J., SANDEEP MEHTA; J. 

Dated: NOVEMBER 18, 2025 

Print Page

Whether award of Lok Adalat must have all the characters of a decree to make it executable?

The minimum details of the property agreed to be conveyed ought to have been reflected in the award, so as to make the award executable. The respondent would raise a contention that the agreement to convey half share of the property owned by him is on a condition that the appellant would stay with him in a rented house.

4. To execute an award, it must have all the characters of a decree to enforce it. If the award is blank and only refers to the obligation without referring to the nature of the obligation to be performed, it become in-executable. The award passed by the Lok Adalat is based on the agreement between the parties. The officers, presiding over such Lok Adalat must apply their mind while passing the award to ensure that such award is executable. They must refer to Order 20 Rules 6 (1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code which refers to the contents of decree. Absolutely, no details are reflected in the award passed to execute the decree. In the absence of any details as referable above, the decree is in-executable. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

M.A. (Exe.) No. 7 of 2013

Decided On: 13.06.2023

Vijaya K. Vs.  Muraleedharan K.G.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas, JJ.

Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/1856/2023.

Print Page

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

Under which circumstances the high court should set aside the order of disposal of Lok Adalat's case?

The Lok Adalat miserably failed to appreciate contents of the compromise and statement of Sh. Sukhpreet Singh Chauhan while ordering the suit to be dismissed as withdrawn merely because of the statement of Sh. Robin Gupta, appears to

be the result of wrong legal advice or actuated by his anxiety to have refund of Court fee but without realizing that he would be entitle to refund of Court fee even if the Lok Adalat passes an award on the basis of settlement.

The question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondent who had back-tracked from his commitment recorded in the compromise and statement made before the Lok Adalat should be allowed to perpetuate his mischief of enjoying the property and huge sum of Rs.3.5 crores by ordering the petitioner to avail alternative remedy for enforcement of agreement because of mistake committed by the Lok Adalat or the order passed by the Lok Adalat should be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227.

As per the settled position in law, no one can be allowed to

misuse and abuse the process of law. The petitioner is involved in

litigation despite having agreed to relinquish his rights in respect of ground

and first floor of the property and parting with a huge amount of Rs.3.5

crores in favour of the respondents plus Rs.1 crore in favour of Sh. Dinesh

Singla. In the given circumstances, if the petitioner is directed to initiate

another bout of litigation for enforcement of the compromise/settlement

deed, it would be nothing short of putting premium over mischievous

conduct of the respondents who failed to discharge their unilateral

obligation on the basis of compromise/settlement and statement recorded

before a Court of law. In this view of the matter, in my considered

opinion, the respondents should not be allowed to take undue advantage of

a wrong committed by the Court and improper legal advice to the

petitioner for withdrawal of the suit.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

Date of decision: 23.12.2020

 CR No.4701 of 2019(O&M)

Robin Gupta  Vs M/s Stratford Educational Management Pvt. Ltd. and others

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Award passed in Lok Adalat in cheque dishonour case can be enforced through Criminal court

 During criminal proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, if the accused were to dishonestly state that he was agreeable for reference to Lok-Adalat, in furtherance of which the matter is referred to Lok-Adalat and a compromise being arrived at on certain terms in a dishonest manner in that the accused even at the time knowing fully well that he would not adhere to the terms of the compromise and thereafter the accused not performing his obligation would take up the contention that only methodology available to the complaint is execution of compromise as a civil decree, thereby the accused would have successfully avoided a criminal prosecution, frustrated the complaint and left the complainant with no possibility or lesser possibility of recovering the monies due to him as he would had under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Complaint for dishonour of cheque is maintainable if cheque was issued pursuant to award of Lok Adalat

In the instant case, the respondent clearly had a liability.

As observed above, there was an earlier adjudication which led to

the conviction of the respondent accused. Thus there was

adjudication of liability of the respondent accused. While the

appeal was pending, the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat in

acknowledgment of liability of the accused respondent to the

appellant complainant.

The cheque issued pursuant to the order of the Lok Adalat, was

also dishonoured. This clearly gave rise to afresh cause of action

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2019

ARUN KUMAR Vs ANITA MISHRA 

Dated:October 18, 2019.

Print Page

How to interpret award of Lok Adalat?

As noticed from the representation submitted by the Appellant to the Gram Panchayath, the core grievance was with regard to the unauthorised structure erected on the plot occupied by the Respondent and which was being used as a Plant for making Rubber Sheets on a commercial basis. The grievance essentially was that the structure was in complete violation of the provisions and conditions of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 and also contributed to severe health hazards to those living in the vicinity. However, the Panchayath was essentially concerned with the unauthorised structure erected on the subject plot by Respondent No. 1. That grievance stood redressed by the award passed by the Lok Adalat recording the assurance given by Respondent No. 1 that he would demolish the existing structure within a period of three months. The fact that the structure, as it existed on the date of making of the award, was removed by Respondent No. 1 is reinforced from the stand taken by the Panchayath in its affidavit. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 admittedly, constructed a new building on the same plot after taking prior permission of the competent authority in that regard, which presupposes that the structure as existed thereat in August, 2013 was removed, without which the new building could not have been erected. The fact that permit was granted to Respondent No. 1 to construct the new building is not only supported by the permit dated 9th October, 2013 (Annexure-P8), but also from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayath dated 9th January, 2015 and including the factual position stated in the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 18th February, 2015.

10. The moot question is the width of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 23rd August, 2013. It is, in our opinion, obviously limited to removal of the existing structure on the stated plot occupied by Respondent No. 1 within three months. That structure, as aforesaid, came to be removed, which fact is reinforced from the circumstances discussed hitherto. The Executing Court, however, erroneously opined that the structure, as it existed at the time of making of the award, was still not demolished.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1424 of 2016

Decided On: 24.04.2019

 Cheriyath Jyothi  Vs. Sainudeen and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Citation:  (2019) 5 SCC 779

Print Page

Whether court can extend time to deposit consideration in execution of award of Lok adalat?

In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion, includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2005

Decided On: 04.08.2005

P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ruma Pal and AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Citation:(2005)6 SCC478

Print Page

Whether Lok adalat can pass contingent award relating to pending matters before court?

In the case at hand, I see that the parties have agreed into the terms of the award on the happening of a specific contingency that this Court allow Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013. This was a matter of pure conjuncture and speculation. I am concerned that the Award did not provide for a prescription as to how the parties would be regulated, if the Court had dismissed Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013. Both parties appear to have been inexplicably confident that this Court would act. in a particular fashion and that the said Crl.M.C. would be allowed in future. I do not see how the parties could entertain such an impression in their minds, and how the Lok Adalath could have allowed the parties to enter in to such an award.

11. I see that the Lok Adalath has merely endorsed the terms of concurrence of the parties without considering the probable issues of violation of morals and public policy in permitting parties to settle on contingent terms which depends on the decisions of this Court in future. This is grossly inappropriate and I am of the view that the Lok Adalath misdirected itself in allowing the parties to enter in to a settlement which is contra bonos mores and contra public policy.

12. I am of the firm view that the Lok Adalaths have a duty to ensure that the settlements entered into by the parties confirm to law, morals and public policy of the Society and the Polity. Any settlement entered in contravention of these would be completely unsustainable and incompetent. If this Court notices that the settlement is one that offers undue advantage to one side on account of prescription of certain contingencies, it becomes a case of contravention of public morals as also of public policy and, therefore, this Court would obtain certain justification in interfering with such Awards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it being null, void and non-est.

13. The unexpendable requirement of Lok Adalats to invest due care, attention and position while passing awards has already been spoken to about by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajagopala Rao v. State Police Chief, MANU/KE/0856/2016 : 2016 (3) KLT 358 : 2016 (3) KLJ 754 : 2016 ICO 379. The Bench had formatted certain guidelines and are very pertinent to read. I, therefore, deem it necessary to extract the relevant paragraph of the said judgment as under:

"18. In order to prevent the menace of passing awards without due care, attention and precision by Lok. Adalats, we intend to formulate some guidelines. We may hastily add that they are not exhaustive and may take in other things as well, depending on the facts of each case. The crucial points to be borne in mind by the persons presiding over the Lok Adalats and the lawyers appearing for the parties are thus:

(i) The persons presiding shall thoroughly study and clearly understand the facts of the case coming up for settlement.

(ii) They must have a clear understanding about the legal issues involved in the dispute between the parties.

(iii) If the parties have engaged lawyers, they shall also participate in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat so that a proper settlement could be arrived at.

(iv) The persons presiding over the Lok Adalat and the lawyers concerned shall bear in mind the fundamental principles, under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, essentially required for executing a legally enforceable agreement.

(v) They shall bear in mind the principles under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also, so that the award must be in the form of an enforceable decree, if the parties so wish. This is all the more important because by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award made by Lok Adalats shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

(vi) The persons presiding over the Lok Adalat shall see that the award passed is clear in its terms and there shall be no room for any confusion in respect of the terms and conditions in the award. They shall take care to see that on account of ill-drafting of the compromise, no litigation in future arises in respect of the matters once settled.

(vii) They shall see that the awards passed are not only legal, but also conforming to the norms prescribed for a decree with all the required details in clear and explicit terms."

14. However, in spite of express declarations by this Court, it is extremely disheartening and disquieting that lessons are not being learnt requiring repeated interventions of this Court.

15. In the case at hand, I see that the absence of a Clause in Ext. P7 as to what would happen in the event this Court dismisses Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013, would render the settlement between the parties, as recorded by the Lok Adalath, inoperative and completely contingent and therefore, contrary to public morals. Contingent Awards cannot be countenanced, especially when such contingencies are relating to pending matters before Courts, especially this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

W.P.(C) No. 35992 of 2015

Decided On: 07.04.2017

P.O. Thomas Vs. Kollam Taluk Legal Service Committee and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Print Page

Whether award of lok adalat can be challenged by filing writ petition?

In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition Under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.

28. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (Respondents herein/Plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition Under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23605 of 2015)

Decided On: 07.09.2017

Bharvagi Constructions and Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4428,(2018) 13 SCC 480

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected if it is barred by Judgment of supreme court?

 The question as to whether the expression "law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code includes "judicial decisions of the Apex Court" came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Virender Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., MANU/UP/1914/2014 : 2014(9) ADJ 1506. The Division Bench dealt with the issue in detail in the context of several decisions on the subject and held in para 15 as under:

15. Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary is also law.

 In the light of the above discussion, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be said that the term "barred by any law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, ought to be read to mean only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the law laid down by the Courts in judicial precedents. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23605 of 2015)

Decided On: 07.09.2017

Bharvagi Constructions and Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4428

Print Page

Procedure to be followed for challenging award of Lok Adalat

It is well settled in the judgment reported in 2017 (5) CTC 775 (Bharvagi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy), award of the Lok Adalat can be challenged only by initiating proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and award can be challenged only on limited grounds. This issue was considered by me vide order dated 30.10.2017 in C.R.P(NPD) No. 4078 of 2013 and award of the Lok Adalat was set aside. The reasoning in the said order and the judgment referred to above are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the well settled judgment, the Tribunal has committed an error and irregularity in allowing the petition filed by the first respondent. Hence, the order dated 28.10.2010 made in M.P No. 1972 of 2010 in M.C.O.P No. 1239 of 2001 is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside.

In the High Court of Madras

(Before V.M Velumani, J.)

N. Prabhuraj  v.   Josephine

C.R.P (PD) No. 4275 of 2010

&

M.P No. 1 of 2010

Decided on December 6, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine Mad 12290

Print Page

Whether award passed by Lok Adalat in criminal case can be executed by civil court?

 On the above analysis, the principles that emerge may be summarized as follows:

(1) Since the Act does not make out any distinction between the reference made by a civil Court or a criminal Court, every Award of the Lok Adalat, whether passed on a reference made by a civil Court or a criminal Court shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and as such, it is executable.

(2) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal Court and the Award was passed by a Lok Adalat Bench of a criminal Unit, yet the Lok Adalat Award is capable of execution by a civil Court within the said Unit or within the District.

(3) If such civil Court is not authorized to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, then the decree may be executed by the competent civil Court to which it is sent on the application of the decree holder.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Civil Revision Petition No. 2030 of 2016

Decided On: 05.01.2017

Talluri Satish Chandra Vs. Thoram Venkateswara Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 HYD120

Print Page

Whether award passed by Lok adalat can be quashed?

 I see that the Lok Adalath has merely endorsed the

terms of concurrence of the parties without considering the

probable issues of violation of morals and public policy in

permitting parties to settle on contingent terms which depends

on the decisions of this Court in future. This is grossly

inappropriate and I am of the view that the Lok Adalath

misdirected itself in allowing the parties to enter in to a

settlement which is contra bonos mores and contra public policy.

       13. I am of the firm view that the Lok Adalaths have a duty

to ensure that the settlements entered into by the parties confirm

to law, morals and public policy of the Society and the Polity. Any

settlement entered in contravention of these would be completely

unsustainable and incompetent. If this Court notices that the

settlement is one that offers undue advantage to one side on

account of prescription of certain contingencies, it becomes a

case of contravention of public morals as also of public policy

and, therefore, this Court would obtain certain justification in

interfering with such Awards under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, it being null, void and non-est.


       14. The unexpendable requirement of Lok Adalats to invest

due care, attention and position while passing awards has already

been spoken to about by a Division Bench of this Court in

Rajagopala Rao v. State Police Chief [2016 (3) KLT 358].

The Bench had formated certain guidelines and are very pertinent

to read. I, therefore, deem it necessary to extract the relevant

paragraph of the said judgment as under:

       "18. In order to prevent the menace of passing awards

without due care, attention and precision by Lok Adalats, we

intend to formulate some guidelines. We may hastily add that

they are not exhaustive and may take in other things as well,

depending on the facts of each case. The crucial points to be

borne in mind by the persons presiding over the Lok Adalats and

the lawyers appearing for the parties are thus:

                      (i) The persons presiding shall thoroughly
              study and clearly understand the facts of the
              case coming up for settlement.
                      (ii) They must have a clear understanding
              about the legal issues involved in the dispute
              between the parties.
                      (iii) If the parties have engaged lawyers,
              they shall also participate in the proceedings
              before the Lok Adalat so that a proper
              settlement could be arrived at.
                      (iv) The persons presiding over the Lok
              Adalat and the lawyers concerned shall bear in
              mind the fundamental principles, under the


              Indian Contract Act, 1872, essentially required
              for executing a legally enforceable agreement.
                      (v) They shall bear in mind the principles
              under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the code of Civil
              Procedure, 1908 also, so that the award must
              be in the form of an enforceable decree, if the
              parties so wish. This is all the more important
              because by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section
              21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,
              every award made by Lok Adalats shall be final
              and binding on the parties to the dispute and no
              appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
                      (vi) The persons presiding over the Lok
              Adalat shall see that the award passed is clear
              in its terms and there shall be no room for any
              confusion in respect of the terms and conditions
              in the award. They shall take care to see that
              on account of ill-drafting of the compromise, no
              litigation in future arises in respect of the
              matters once settled.
                      (vii) They shall see that the awards
              passed are not only legal, but also conforming
              to the norms prescribed for a decree with all the
              required details in clear and explicit terms."

       15. However, in spite of express declarations by this Court,

it is extremely disheartening and disquieting that lessons are not

being learnt requiring repeated interventions Court.

       16. In the case at hand, I see that the absence of a Clause

in Ext.P7 as to what would happen in the event this Court

dismisses Crl.M.C. No.295/2013, would render the settlement

between the parties, as recorded by the Lok Adalath, inoperative

and completely contingent and therefore, contrary to public



morals. Contingent Awards cannot be countenanced, especially

when such contingencies are relating to pending matters before

Courts, especially this Court.

       17. The malafides involved in the present stand of the 2nd

respondent would be very apparent because it now asserts that

since Crl.M.C. No.295/2013 has been withdrawn by the

petitioner, it is under no obligation to make payment at all. This

obviously offers an illegal and unlawful advantage to the 2nd

respondent, tilting the balance of the scales of justice capriciously

against the petitioner, merely because Ext.P7 Award had been

allowed to be entered into thoughtlessly by the competent

Authority of the 1st respondent. I cannot permit this to happen

and I, therefore, am of the view that I will be justified in

interfering with Ext.P7 Award and relegating the parties to their

normal channel of litigation, so that substantial justice can be

obtained for both sides.

       In such circumstances, I have no hesitation in striking down

and quashing Ext.P7 Award so as to pave way for the

proceedings before the Sub Court, Kollam pending in O.S.

No.381/2013 to be continued and concluded in the manner that



is appropriate in law. I do so.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

              MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

                                   WP(C).No. 35992 of 2015 


 P.O.THOMAS, S/O. OOMMAN, V   KOLLAM TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,
        

Print Page

Whether award of Lok Adalat is executable as decree of civil court?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 2(e) – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), 

Section 21 – Decree – Meaning – Whether award passed by Lok Adalat can be treated as decree of Civil Court – 

Criminal case filed by Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was referred to Lok Adalat for 

settlement – Lok Adalat passed award settling dispute between parties – Respondent failed to make payment in 

terms of award passed by Lok Adalat – Appellant filed Execution Petition before District Munsif Court for execution 

of award – District Munsif Court dismissed Execution Petition in an unnumbered stage holding that award passed 

by Lok Adalat in pursuance of reference made by Magistrate in Criminal case is not a decree – Held, every award of 

Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of Civil Court and such decree is executable by a Court of law – Act does 

not make out any distinction between reference made by Civil Court and Criminal Court – No restriction on power 

of Lok Adalat to pass award based on compromise arrived at between parties in respect of cases referred to by 

various Courts including both Civil and Criminal, Tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal 

Forum, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and other forums of similar nature.

Supreme Court of India

K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon vs C.D. Shaji on 28 November, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar

Citation;AIR2012SC719, (2012)2MLJ307(SC), (2012)2SCC51

Print Page