TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Lok Adalat award was executable as a decree and capable of enforcement by the civil court; whether the appellant had shown readiness and willingness to perform the compromise and the respondent could rely on alleged non-compliance to resist execution; and whether the court could extend time for deposit and execution in aid of the compromise award.
Analysis: An award of Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act is deemed to be a decree of a civil court, is final and binding, and may be enforced in the same manner as a decree. The compromise was intended to bring the litigation to an end, and the court was bound to give efficacy to it rather than defeat it on technical objections. The appellant had taken steps to notify the respondent, and the returned notice together with the subsequent telegram supported the conclusion that he was ready and willing to perform his part. Presumption of service arose from the correctly addressed notice and the postal endorsement, and there was no requirement to examine the postman in the facts of the case. The executing court was competent to grant time for deposit in appropriate circumstances, and the High Court erred in interfering with that exercise of jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The challenge to the execution of the Lok Adalat award failed, and the respondent remained bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A Lok Adalat award, being deemed a civil court decree and final and binding on the parties, must be given practical enforceability by the court, which may extend time in appropriate cases, and a party resisting execution cannot defeat the award by relying on technical objections when the other side has shown readiness and willingness to perform.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
