TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Quashes Lok Adalat's Unauthorized Compensation Increase, Remands Case for Expedited High Court Review.</h1> <h3>State of Punjab & Anr. Versus Jalour Singh & Ors.</h3> State of Punjab & Anr. Versus Jalour Singh & Ors. - 2008 AIR 1209, 2008 (1) SCR 922, 2008 (2) SCC 660, 2008 (2) JT 83, 2008 (2) SCALE 52 Issues Involved:1. Validity and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat's order.2. Maintainability of objections to the Lok Adalat's order.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in handling the appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat's Order:The Supreme Court scrutinized the order passed by the Lok Adalat, which had increased the compensation to Rs. 62,200 without the consent of the parties. The Court highlighted that Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory or judicial functions but are meant for conciliation. It was emphasized that Lok Adalats should act to facilitate a compromise or settlement between parties, not to adjudicate disputes. The Lok Adalat had acted beyond its jurisdiction by assuming a judicial role and passing an order without a settlement or compromise. The Supreme Court declared the order of the Lok Adalat void as it was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.2. Maintainability of Objections to the Lok Adalat's Order:Punjab Roadways filed an application to set aside the Lok Adalat's order, which was rejected by the High Court on the ground that such objections were not maintainable. The Supreme Court noted that the Lok Adalat's order was not an award based on a settlement, as required by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Court emphasized that without a settlement, the Lok Adalat's order could not be considered final or binding. Therefore, the objections to the Lok Adalat's order were indeed maintainable, and the High Court should have heard the appeal on merits.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Handling the Appeal:The High Court had dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that the Lok Adalat's order was final. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, pointing out that the High Court failed to recognize the absence of a settlement and the non-adjudicatory nature of the Lok Adalat's functions. The Supreme Court clarified that in the absence of a settlement, the High Court should have treated the appeal as pending and disposed of it on merits. The High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction led to unnecessary delays and expenses for the appellants.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Lok Adalat's order dated 3.8.2001, and set aside the High Court's orders dated 11.9.2002 and 26.2.2003. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing and disposal of the appeal (FAO No.1549/1999) on merits, in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal, with each party bearing their respective costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
