Legal provisions involved: Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act and Article 227 of the Constitution
Judgement by: Supreme Court
Bench/Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts
The case began when a settlement was recorded by the Jabalpur Lok Adalat in May 2022 involving Dilip Mehta. After the award was passed, Mehta felt the compromise was not valid and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to examine it under Article 227. The High Court refused to even look into the matter, saying that Mehta had already filed objections before the Executing Court, and therefore he should pursue that remedy. Mehta then approached the Supreme Court challenging this refusal.
Key legal provisions involved
Issues raised
- Whether a person can challenge a Lok Adalat award before an Executing Court?
- Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting a writ petition by calling execution objections an alternative remedy?
Arguments of the case
Mehta argued that once a Lok Adalat passes an award, no civil court or executing court can reopen it, so his only remedy was to approach the High Court. He said the High Court should have heard his petition. The other side maintained that since objections were already filed in execution, the High Court was right in dismissing the petition.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that Lok Adalat awards cannot be questioned before an Executing Court. The only proper remedy is a writ petition before the High Court. The court set aside the High Court’s order and directed it to hear Mehta’s petition on merits.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
