Supreme Court of India
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENONversusC.D. SHAJI
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 824
- Decided
- 28 November 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 deems every Lok Adalat award, even when arising from a criminal reference under Section 138 of the NI Act, to be a decree of a civil court and thus executable.
Summary
The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the magistrate referred to a Lok Adalat for settlement. The parties reached a compromise and the Lok Adalat passed an award, but the respondent failed to honour the payment schedule, leading the appellant to file an execution petition in a civil court. The civil court and the Kerala High Court held that the Lok Adalat award, being the product of a criminal reference, could not be treated as a decree of a civil court and refused execution. The Supreme Court examined Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which deems every Lok Adalat award to be a decree of a civil court, and found no statutory distinction between civil and criminal referrals. Relying on the language of the statute and several precedents, the Court held that the award is executable as a civil decree. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the execution petition was restored for further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether an award of a Lok Adalat in a case referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is deemed a decree of a civil court and therefore executable
Legislation cited
Subjects
Legal Services Authorities ActLok AdalatAwardDecreeExecutionSection 138 NI ActDeeming provisionCivil courtCriminal caseLegal fiction
Judgment
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 447
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON A
v.
C.D. SHAJI
(Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]
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 power1of 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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
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
cleemed to be a decree of a civil court <1nd as such it
is executable by that Court.
b) The Act does not make out any such distinction
between the reference made by a civil court and
criminal court. E
c) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok
Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise
arrived at between the parties in respect of cases
referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), F
Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court,
Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.
d) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, G
1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the
award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a
compromise has to be treated as a decree capable
of execution by a civil court. [Para 17] [461-F-H; 462-
A-Cl H
/
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.i S.C.R.
A ·Subhash Narasappa Mangrule (MIS) and Others vs.
Sidramappa Jagdevappa Unnad 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 857 and
Mis Va/armathi Oil Industries & Anr. vs. Mis Saradhi Ginning
Factory AIR 2009 Madras 180 - approved.
State of Punjab & Anr vs. Jalour Singh and Ors. (2008)
8
2 SCC 660: 2008 (1) SCR 922; B.P. Moideen Sevamandir
and Anr. v. AM. Kutty Hassan (2009) 2 SCC 198: 2008 (17)
SCR 905 and P. T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job (2005) 6 SCC
478: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 20 - relied on.
c Bhavnagar University vs. Pa/itana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and
Others (2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 and
lttianam .and Others vs. Cherichi @ Padmini (2010) 8 SCC
612: 2010 (8) SCR 1135 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
D
2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 857 approved Paras 10,14
AIR 2009 Madras 180 approved Paras 11, 14
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to Para 12
E
2010 (8) SCR 1135 referred to Para 13
2008 (1) SCR 922 relied on Para 15
2008 (17) SCR 905 relied on Para 15
F ]005 (2) Suppl. SCR 20 relied on Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10209 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.11.2009 of the High
G
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No. 33013 of 2009.
Prashanth P., Prachi Bajpai, S.K. Balachandran, T. Harish
Kumar for the Appellant.
H V. Giri (AC) for the Respondent.
(
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 451
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal raises an important question as to the
interpretation of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act'). The question posed for · B
consideration is that when a criminal case filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 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? C
3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala
at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009 whereby
the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant
0
herein. '1
4. Brief facts:
(a) The appellant herein filed a complaint being C.C. No.
1216 of 2007 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court E
No.1, Ernakulam against the respondent herein under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I.
Act'). The Magistrate referred the said complaint to the
Ernakulam District Legal Service Authority for trying the case
for settlement between the parties in the Lok Adalat. F
(b) On 08.05.2009, both parties appeared before the Lok
Adalat and the matter was settled and an award was passed
on the same day. As per the award, out of Rs. 6,000/-, the
respondent herein paid Rs.500/- on the same day and agreed
to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,500/- in five equal G
instalments of Rs.1, 100/- per month on or before the 10th day
of every month starting from .iune, 2009 and, in case of default,
the appellant herein can recover the balance amount due froin
the respondent in lump sum.
H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (c) As the respondent did not pay any of the installments
as per the settlement, the appellant filed execution petition
being E.P. No ..... of 2009 in C.C. No. 1216 of 2007 in the
Court of Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam for seeking the execution
of the award. On 23.09.2009, the Principal Munsiff Judge,
B Ernakulam dismissed the petition holding that the award
passed by the Lok Adalat on reference from the Magistrate
Court cannot be construed as a "decree" executable by the civil
court.
(d) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ
C petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009 before the
High Court of Kerala. The High Court, vide order dated
24.11.2009, dismissed the writ petition.
(e) Against the said order, the appellant filed the above
o appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
5. The respondent, though duly served by this Court, has
not chosen to contest the matter either by appearing in person
or through counsel. Heard Mr. Prashanth P., learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel, who,
E on our request, assisted this Court as amicus curiae.
6. In order to find out the answer to the question raised, it
is useful to refer the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
certain provisions of the Act applicable to the question posed
F before us.
"Statement of objects and Reasons.- Article 39-A of the
Constitution provides that the State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis
of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free
G
legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other
way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are
not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.
H
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTIY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 453
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
2. With the object of providing free legal aid, Government A
had, by Resolution dated the 26th September, 1980
appointed the "Committee for Implementing Legal P,id
Schemer.'""\CILAS) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice
P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) to monitor and implement
legal aid programmes on a uniform basis in all the States B
and Union territories. CILAS evolved a model scheme for
legal aid programme applicable throughout the country by
which several legal aid and advice boards have been set
up in the States and Union territories. CILAS is funded
wholly by grants from the Central Government. The i:
Government is accordingly concerned with the programme
of legal aid as it is the implementation of a constitutional ·
mandate. But on a review of the working of the CILAS,
certain deficiencies have comf:t to the fore. It is, therefore,
felt that it will be desirable to constitute statutory legal
0
service authorities at the National, State and District levels
so as to provide for the effective monitoring of legal aid
programmes. The Bill provides for the composition of such
authorities and for the funding of these authorities by
means of grants from the Central Government and the
E
State Governments. Power has been also given to the
National Committee and the State Committees to
supervise the effective implementation of legal aid
schemes.
For some lime now, Lok Adalats are being constituted at F
various places in the country for the disposal, in a
summary way and through the process of arbitration and
settlement between the parties, of a large number of cases
expeditiously and with lesser costs. The institution of Lok
Adalats is at present functioning as a voluntary and G
conciliatory agency without any statutory backing for its
decisions. It has proved to be very oopular in providing for
a speedier system of administration of justice. In view of
its growing popularity, there has been a demand for
providing a statutory backing to this institution and the H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
awards given by Lok Adalats. It is felt that such a statutory
support would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work
in regular Courts, but would also take justice to the door-
steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker
and less expensive."
B
"2. (aaa) "Court" means a civil, criminal or revenue Court
and includes any Tribunal or any other authority constituted
under any law for the time being in force, to exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;"
c "2(c) "l~gal service" includes the rendering of any service
in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding
before any Court or other authority or Tribunal and the
giving of advice on any legal matter;"
D "2(d) "Lok Adalat" means a Lok Adalat organized under
Chapter VI."
"21. 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
E compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
Ada lat 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).
F
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and
binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal
shall lie to any Court against the award."
_ 7. Free legal aid to the poor and marginalized members,
8 of the society is now viewed as a tool to empower them to use
the power of the law to advance their rights and interests as,
citizens and as economic actors. Parliament enacted the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 in order to give effect to Article.
39-A of the Constitution to extend free legal aid, to ensure that
H '
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTIY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 455
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal A
opportunity. Those entitled to free legal services are members
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, women,
children, persons with disability, victims of ethnic violence,
industrial workmen, persons in custody, and those whose
income does not exceed a level set by the government B
(currently it is Rs 1 lakh a year in most States). The Act
empowers Legal Services Authorities at the District, State and
National levels, and the different committees to organize Lok
Adalats to resolve pending and pre-litigation disputes. It
provides for permanent Lok Adalats to settle disputes involving c
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 and so on, and giving advice on legal matters.
Promoting legal literacy and conducing legal awareness
0
programmes are the functions of legal services institutions. 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 judiciary with the task E
of implementing the provisions of the Act.
8. Section 21 of the Act, which we have extracted above,
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 hand, the question posed for consideration F
beforli! the High Court was that "when a criminal case referred
1 to 'by the Magis~rate to a Lok Adalat is settled by the parties
and award is passed recording the settlement, can it be
considered as a decree of civil court and thus executable by
that court?" After highlighting the relevant provisions, namely, G
Section 21 of the Act, it was contended before the High Court
that every award passed by the Lok Adalat has to be deemed
to be a decree of a civil court and as such executable by that
court. Unfortunately, the said argument was not acceptable by
the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court has concluded H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A ·that when a criminal case is referred to the Lok Adalat and it
is settled at the Lok Adalat, the award passed has to be treated
only as an order of that criminal court and it cannot be executed
as a decree of the civil court. After saying so, the High Court
finally concluded "an award passed by the Lok Adalat on
B reference of a criminal case by the criminal court as already
concluded can only be construed as an order by the criminal
court and it is not a decree passed by a civil court" and
confirmed the order of the Principal Munsiff who declined the
request of the petitioner therein to execute the award passed
c by the Lok Adalat on reference of a complaint by the criminal
court. On going through the Statement of Objects and Reasons,
definition of 'Court', 'legal service' as well as Section 21 of the
Act, in addition to the reasons given hereunder, we are of the
view that the interpretation adopted by the Kerala High Court
in the impugned order is erfOneous.
0
9. It is useful to refer some of the judgments of this Court
and the High Courts which have a bearing on the present issue.
10. In Subhash Narasappa Mangrule (MIS) and Others
E vs. Sidramappa Jagdevappa Unnad, reported in 2009 (3)
Mh.L.J. 857, learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay,
considered an identical question. In that case, on 22.06.2001,
the respondent filed a Criminal Complaint being S.C.C. No.
923 of 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
F Akkalkot under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Later, the said
criminal case was transferred to Lok Adalat. The matter was
compromised before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed
accordingly for Rs. 4 lakhs. The respondent therein filed a
Darkhast proceeding No. 17 of 2006 in the Court of C.J.J.D.
G for execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat in the
criminal case as there was no compliance of the compromised
order/award. The learned C.J.J.D., issued a notice under Order
XXVll Rule . 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
'the Code'). The petitioner therein raised an objection stating
.
that the Darkhast proceeding is not maintainable as the award
H
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 457
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
has been passed in criminal case. By order dated 18.07.2007, A
the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) disposed off the objection
and directed to proceed with the execution by the Judgment
and order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners therein filed
a revision before the High Court. After adverting to Section 20
and other provisions of the Act, the learned single Judge has B
concluded thus:-
"16. The parties were fully aware that under the Act, the
District Legal Services Authority may explore the possibility
of holding pre-litigation Lok Adalats in respect of the C
cheque bouncing cases. The compromise in such cases
would be treated as Award having force of a decree. All
objections as raised with regard to the execution in view
of above statutory provisions itself is rightly rejected.
Having settled the matter in Lok Adalat and now after more
than 3 years raising such plea is untenable. Having D
obtained the award from Lok Adalat, the party is not
permitted to resile from the same. It attains finality to the
dispute between the parties finally and binds all. Therefore,
the order in this regard needs no interference.
E
17. Once the parties entered into compromise before the
Lok Adalat, & at that time no question of any pecuniary
jurisdiction raised and or required to be considered by the
Lok Adalat. Therefore, once the award is passed, it is
executable under C.P.C ..... " F
11. In Mis Valarmathi Oil Industries &Anr. vs. Mis Saradhi
Ginning Factory, AIR 2009 Madras 180, the admitted facts
were that C.C. No. 308 of 2006 was taken on file by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem on the complaint given by the
respondent therein that the cheque was issued by the second G
petitioner therein on behalf of the first petitioner as partner of
the firm, however, the same was dishonoured by the bank due
to insufficient funds. According to the respondent, after
issuance of the legal notice to the petitioner, the complaint was
given under Section 138 of the N. I. Act against the petitioners. H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A· During the pendency of the criminal case, at the request of both
the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement
Both the parties were present before the Lok Adalat and as
per the award, they agreed for the settlement and accordingly,
the petitioner/accused agreed to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- to the
B respondent on or before 03.09.2007. It was signed by the
respondent/complainant, petitioners/accused and their
respective counsel. In view of the compromise arrived at
between both the parties, the amount payable was fixed at Rs.
3,75,000/- towards full quit of the claim and that the petitioners
c therein agreed to pay the above-said amount on or before
03.09.2007 and accordingly, the award was passed and
placed before the Judicial Magistrate Court for further orders.
When the said award was placed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, by judgment dated 17.10.2007, based on the award
held that the petitioners therein guilty and convicted under
0
Section 138 of N.I. Act, accordingly, imposed sentence of one
year simple imprisonment and directed the petitioners therein
to pay a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation to the
respondent. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners/accused
preferred appeal in C.S.No.167 of 2007 before the Sessions
E Judge, Salem. Learned Sessions Judge, while suspending the
sentence of imprisonment till 16.12.2007, directed the
petitioners/accused to deposit the sum of Rs. 3, 75,000/- before
the trial court and clarified that in case of failure of depositing
the amount, the order of suspension of sentence would stand
F cancelled automatically and the petitioners were also directed
to execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. Aggrieved by
the same, the accused preferred criminal revision case before
the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners
G before the High Court that as per Section 21 of the Act, every
award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a
civil court and, therefore, after the award passed by the Lok
Adalat, the respondent/complainant was entitled to execute the
award like a decree of the civil court, however, in the instant
H case, the learned Magistrate, by his Judgment has found the
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 459
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
petitioners guilty under Section 138 of N.1. Act and also A
convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year and to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/-.
The question formulated by the High Court is whether the
Magistrate can convict the petitioner~/accused under Section
138 of N.1. Act after the award was passed in the Lok Adalat. B
Learned single Judge, after adverting to Section 21 (1) of the
Act and the order of the learned Magistrate has concluded as
under:-
"13. Had there been no settlement in the Lok Adalat, the
learned Magistrate could have proceeded with the trial and C
deliver his Judgment, for which, there is no bar. In the
instant case, as admitted by both the ·reamed Counsel,
there was an award passed in the Lok Ada lat, based on
the consensus arrived at between the.Parties. As per the
award, the petitioners/accused had to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- D
to the respondent/complainant on or .before 03.09.2007.
As it is an award made by Lok Adalat, it is final and
binding on the parties to the criminal revision and as
contemplated under Section 21(2) of the Act, no appeal
shall lie to any court against the award. E
14. In such circumstances, the petitioners could have filed
the Execution Petition before the appropriate court,
seeking the award amount to be paid with interest and
costs. In such circumstances, it is clear that the learned F
Judicial Magistrate became functus officio, to decide the
case after the award passed by Lok Adalat, to convict the
accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
hence, the impugned order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge is also not sustainable in law, however, it G
is clear that the petitioners/accused herein after having
given consent for Lok Adalat award being passed and also
the award amount agreed to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- on or
before 03.09.2007 to the respondent, have riot complied
with their undertaking made before the Lok Adalat, which H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A cannot be justified. However, the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of
Ne.gotiable Instruments Act has to be set aside, in view of
the Lok Adalat award passed under Section 20(1)(i)(b),
20(1)(ii) of Legal Services Authorities Act (Act, 39/1987),
B as the Judicial Magistrate became functus officio and the
award is an executable decree in the eye of law, as per
Section 21 of the Act."
After arriving at such conclusion, learned single Judge
made it clear that as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat,
C the respondent/complainant is at liberty to file Execution Petition
before the appropriate court to get the award amount of Rs.
3,75,000/- reimbursed with subsequent interest and costs, as
per procedure known to law.
D 12. In Bhavnc.gar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd. a"ld Others, (200'.3) 2 SCC 111, it was held that the purpose
and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well known
and when a legal fiction is created, it must be given its full effect.
E 13. In lttianam and Others vs. Cherichi@ Padmini (2010)
8 sec 612, it was held that when the Legislature uses a
deeming provision to create a legal fiction, it is always used to
achieve a purpose.
14. A statutory support as evidenced in the statement of
F Objects and reasons of the Act would not only reduce the
burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take
justice to the door steps of the poor and the needy and make
justice quicker and less expensive. In the case on hand, the
Courts below erred in holding that only if the matter was one
G which was referred by a civil court it coµld 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 make out any such distinction between
the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. There is
H no restriction on the power of Lok Adalat to pass an award
K.N. GOVINDAN KUTIY MENON v. C.D. SHAJI 461
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in a A·
case referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act, and by virtue of the deeming provision it has to be treated
as a decree capable of execution by a civil court. In this regard,
the view taken in Subhash Narasappa Mangru/e (supra) and
Mis Va/armathi Oil Industries (supra) supports this contention B
and we fully accept the same.
1S. It is useful to refer the judgment of this Court in Staie
of Punjab & Anr. VS. Jalour Singh and Ors. (2008) 2 sec 660.
The ratio that decision was that the "award" of the Lok Adalat C
does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at
by any decision making process. The making of the award is
merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of
settlement or compromise agreed by the parties in the presence
of the Lok Ada lat, in the fonn of an executable order under the
signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. This judgment was D
followed in B.P. Moideen Sevamandir and Anr. vs. A.M. Kutty
Hassan (2009) 2 SCC 198.
16. In P. T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478,
Lok Adalat, its benefits, Award and its finality has been E
extensively discussed.
17. From the above discussion, the following propositions
emerge:
(1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 F
of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be
deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such
it is executable by that Court.
(2) The Act does not make out any such distinction G
between the reference made by a civil court and
criminal court.
(3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok
Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A arrived at between the parties in respect of cases
referred· to by various Courts (both civil and
criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control
Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of
B sjmilar nature.
(4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the
award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a
c compromise has to be treated as a decree capable
of execution by a civil court.
18. In view of the above discussion and ultimate conclusion,
we set aside the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the
D Principal Munsiff Judge in an unnumbered execution petition
of 2009 in CC No. 1216 of 2007 and the order of the High
Court dated 24.11.2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009.
Consequently, we direct the execution court to restore the
execution petition and to proceed further in accordance with
E law.
19. Before parting with this case, we would.like to record
our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by
the learned amicus curiae.
F 20. The civil appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal Allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Legal Services Authorities Act"Sign in to search