MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY Vs. PRATEEK JAIN
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
September 10,2014
Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority
Appellant
VERSUS
Prateek Jain
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
O.P. DHOLAKIA V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]DAMODAR S PRABHU VS. SAYED BABALAL H [REFERRED TO]
K N GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON VS. C D SHAJI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
URMILA MASOMAT VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-6] [REFERRED TO]NAZEEB MOHAMMAD VS. HP MINORITY FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. NARAYAN DASS [LAWS(HPH)-2019-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM SINGH VS. BHUMI PRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. GOPAL SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA C VS. KALAVATHI JAISHANKAR [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-1195] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK KATARIA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
VEERENDRA VS. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYA R. VS. B.VEERABHADRAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-708] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI RAKESH THAKUR VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR SON [LAWS(HPH)-2022-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
DHALU RAM VS. PIAR SINGH GULERIA [LAWS(HPH)-2021-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. MOHINDER VERMA [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-227] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. PREM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-175] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KUMAR VS. GUPT RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-244] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. BRAHAM DASS [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
DAYAWATI VS. YOGESH KUMAR GOSAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
SWARNA DEVI VS. PAWAN KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-659] [REFERRED]
M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN VS. LEELA VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2023-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PANCHBHAI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
JAILANI MUDDEBIHAL S/O KASIMSAB VS. HANUMANTHAPPA MAYAKAR S/O PARAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-310] [REFERRED TO]
NARVEER SINGH CHAUHAN VS. BHIKHAM RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2022-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
VISALAKSHI K.T. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-3-326] [REFERRED TO]
METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KANCHAN MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJU M.S. VS. JIJO M.D. [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV RAM VS. PADAM SINGH THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2018-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
JAI CHAND VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH COMMERCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(HPH)-2022-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM VS. RAJINDER BHAIK [LAWS(HPH)-2023-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT VS. DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER MOHAN VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH NALAGARH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P [LAWS(HPH)-2022-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. JITENDER [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-228] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAN LAL VS. RAJESH THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-227] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR BHARDWAJ VS. SOHAN LAL GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-183] [REFERRED TO]
AJEEM MOHAMMAD VS. MOHAMMAD SAMSHER KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-110] [REFERRED]
DEVENDER SHARMA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2024-3-147] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. SURINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2023-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2022-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. MAKHAN LAL (DECEASED) [LAWS(HPH)-2017-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KUMAR VS. MAST RAM & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. SHYAM LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS RAM. VS. MADAN LAL SONI. [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEEP SINGH VS. PADAMDEV [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM VS. KARAM SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-139] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. NEEL CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2020-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
L.I.C. OF INDIA VS. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
YASH INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS VS. KARTIK RAVICHANDER S/O RAMANATHAN RAVICHANDER [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KUMAR VS. BALDEV AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. PRAKASH CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. BOBBY RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI DEVI VS. ANANT RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-216] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP RAM VS. RAKESH AHUJA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-4-143] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL RAM VS. DULA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH VS. CHAMAN SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-222] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANT VS. MADAN LAL THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER KUMAR VS. RAJESH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASRE VISHWAKARMA VS. AATMARAM DIWAKAR [LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-179] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHA M PADAVALKAR VS. GOVIND V NAIKLABIC [LAWS(KAR)-2018-11-233] [REFERRED TO]
HARVINDER SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND VS. RAKESH KASHYAP [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
TANUJ SHARMA VS. MINAKSHI GUPTA [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the appellant herein, has filed the instant appeal challenging the propriety of orders dated February 27, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1519 of 2012, which was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Jain (respondent No.2 herein) impleading Prateek Jain (respondent No.1 herein) as the sole respondent. Essentially the lis was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against respondent No.2. Matter reached before the Additional Sessions Judge in the form of criminal appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the matter was settled between the parties. On their application, the matter was referred to Mega Lok Adalat. However, the concerned Presiding Officer in the Lok Adalat did not give his imprimatur to the said settlement in the absence of deposit made as per the direction given in the judgment of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663. Against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, a writ petition was filed by respondent No.2 but the same is also dismissed by the High Court, accepting the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge.
(3.)From the aforesaid, it would be clear that the matter in issue was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant comes in picture only because the parties had approached the Mega Lok Adalat organised by the appellant. The reason for filing the present appeal is the apprehension of the appellant that if the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalats are not accepted by the Courts, one of the essential function and duty of Legal Services Authority cast upon by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the '1987 Act') would be greatly prejudiced and, therefore, it is necessary to straighten the law on the subject matter. Acknowledging the significance of the issue involved, permission was granted to the appellant to file the special leave petition and notice was issued in the special leave petition on December 06, 2012. Operation of the impugned order of the High Court was also stayed in the following words:
"In the meantime, having regard to the objects to be achieved by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the operation of the order passed by the Lok Adalat-I, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 30th July, 2011, and that of the High Court impugned in this petition, shall remain stayed."
(2.)Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the appellant herein, has filed the instant appeal challenging the propriety of orders dated February 27, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1519 of 2012, which was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Jain (respondent No.2 herein) impleading Prateek Jain (respondent No.1 herein) as the sole respondent. Essentially the lis was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against respondent No.2. Matter reached before the Additional Sessions Judge in the form of criminal appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the matter was settled between the parties. On their application, the matter was referred to Mega Lok Adalat. However, the concerned Presiding Officer in the Lok Adalat did not give his imprimatur to the said settlement in the absence of deposit made as per the direction given in the judgment of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663. Against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, a writ petition was filed by respondent No.2 but the same is also dismissed by the High Court, accepting the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge.
(3.)From the aforesaid, it would be clear that the matter in issue was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant comes in picture only because the parties had approached the Mega Lok Adalat organised by the appellant. The reason for filing the present appeal is the apprehension of the appellant that if the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalats are not accepted by the Courts, one of the essential function and duty of Legal Services Authority cast upon by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the '1987 Act') would be greatly prejudiced and, therefore, it is necessary to straighten the law on the subject matter. Acknowledging the significance of the issue involved, permission was granted to the appellant to file the special leave petition and notice was issued in the special leave petition on December 06, 2012. Operation of the impugned order of the High Court was also stayed in the following words:
"In the meantime, having regard to the objects to be achieved by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the operation of the order passed by the Lok Adalat-I, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 30th July, 2011, and that of the High Court impugned in this petition, shall remain stayed."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.