Allowed¶14

Sh. Zosiamliana v. Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/63/2024; GAHC030004272024; decided 12.03.2025; Michael Zothankhuma J.; ex parte; Lok Adalat Award dated 11.09.2021 set aside as void; National Lok Adalat Lunglei; no settlement signed by parties; Section 20(3) Legal Services Authorities Act 1987; Article 226/227 Constitution; State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008) 2 SCC 660; Money Suit No. 48/2019; Execution Suit No. 24/2023; LSC No. 166/1996; Rs. 9,75,000/- loan; Rs. 700,000/- settlement amount; remanded to Lok Adalat Lunglei for fresh compromise; unauthorized signature by junior counsel C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Lok Adalat Award dated 11.09.2021 set aside as void; matter remanded to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei to attempt a fresh compromise, failing which to be sent back to the Trial Court for disposal as per law; writ petition allowed.

Sh. Zosiamliana Vs Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lok Adalat Award dated 11.09.2021 was validly made in terms of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, i.e., whether it was founded on a settlement signed by the parties, or ought to be set aside.

¶6

Court's answer

The petitioner was not present at the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021 and did not put his signature on the Award; there is nothing to show that any separate settlement had been arrived at between the parties, nor that the petitioner gave permission to anyone to sign the Award on his behalf.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

As 30 days had elapsed since Dasti service of notice, notice is deemed served upon the respondent; as no one appeared for the respondent, the matter was decided ex parte.

¶3

Key takeaways

In the present case there is nothing to show that any settlement was arrived at between the parties and signed by the parties, on the basis of which the Award dated 11.09.2021 could have been issued; the Award does not contain the petitioner's signature and instead bears the signature of C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli over the name Zosiamliana (petitioner).ratio¶12
The Award dated 11.09.2021 was made in violation of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; it is void, cannot be said to be an Award in terms of Section 20(3) of that Act, and the impugned Award is accordingly set aside.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mizoram), WP(C)/63/2024, decided ex parte on 12.03.2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma. The petitioner challenged a Lok Adalat Award dated 11.09.2021 passed in the National Lok Adalat, Lunglei, arising out of Money Suit No. 48/2019 (Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei) for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/-, which recorded a purported compromise obliging him to pay Rs. 700,000/- within six months, and which was under execution as Execution Suit No. 24/2023 (operation stayed vide Order dated 20.08.2024). Finding that the petitioner was absent at the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021, never signed the Award or any settlement, and that the Award bore the signature of junior counsel C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli over his name without authority (per affidavit dated 26.06.2024 of counsel Z.D. Lalnunsanga), and relying on State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660, the Court held that an Award not founded on a settlement signed by the parties is made in violation of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is contrary to law and beyond the Lok Adalat's power and jurisdiction, and is void. The impugned Award was set aside; the matter was remanded to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei to attempt a fresh compromise, failing which to the learned Trial Court for disposal as per law. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030004272024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/63/2024

¶5

Sh. Zosiamliana S/o Padama (L) R/o Lunglawn, Lunglei, Mizoram

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua S/o C. Lalthanliana R/o Zobawk, Lunglei, Mizoram

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Thangremsang

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶10

ORDER

¶11

B E F O R E

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶13

12.03.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. K. Thangremsang, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent.

¶15

2. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 06.11.2024, indicating notice had been served upon the respondent by way of Dasti service. On the

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

other hand, notice was also sent by registered post with A/D for the respondent on 02.07.2024. However, there is no return of A/D card or unserved notice. This Court has also noticed that the operation of Execution Suit No. 24/2023, for execution of the Award dated 11.09.2021 made by the Lok Adalat in the National Lok Adalat, had been stayed vide Order dated 20.08.2024. However, despite the same, no one appears for the respondent.

¶18

3. This Court is of the view that as 30 days has elapsed and as Dasti service of notice has been made on the respondent, notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent. As no one appears for the respondent, the matter is being decided exparte.

¶19

4. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent had filed Money Suit No. 48/2019 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the petitioner, which had been taken on loan. The petitioner had accordingly deposited his land document, i.e. LSC No. 166/1996, as security for the loan amount. The Money Suit was thereafter sent to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei for attempting a settlement between the parties.

¶20

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that Award dated 11.09.2021 was issued by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021, wherein it was recorded that an agreement had been reached between the parties, wherein the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs. 700,000/- to the respondent within 6 months. Thereafter, the LSC No. 166/1996 was to be returned by the respondent to the petitioner.

¶21

6 . The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Award dated 11.09.2021 has

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

been submitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for execution by the respondent and the same was registered Execution Suit No. 24/2023. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Award had not been signed by the petitioner and the same was done by the Junior counsel i.e. C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli, who was the Junior of Z.D. Lalnunsanga, the petitioner’s counsel. He submits that the Award dated 11.09.2021 has not been made on the basis of any settlement between the parties. Further, C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli had not been given permission by the petitioner to sign the Award. He accordingly prays that as no Settlement had been made and as the Award has not been signed by the petitioner, the Award dated 11.09.2021 should be set aside.

¶24

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

8. A perusal of the Award dated 11.09.2021 shows that C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli has signed the Award on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. Zosiamliana. The petitioner has not given any signature to any Settlement or the Award. There is also no document to show that the petitioner had given his consent to his counsel, to sign the Award on his behalf or that he agreed to the terms of the Award. The affidavit dated 26.06.2024 executed by the counsel for the petitioner in the District Court, Lunglei i.e. Sh. Z.D. Lalnunsanga, is to the effect that he had not directed his junior C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli to put her signature on any document in the Lok Adalat, as she was not authorized by the petitioner. However, C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli was forced by the Members of the Lok Adalat to put her signature on behalf of the petitioner.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

9. Despite the veracity of above proposition not being to test, this Court finds that the petitioner was not present at the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021 and neither had he put his signature on the said Award. Further, there is nothing to show that any separate settlement had been arrived at between the parties. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner had given permission to anyone to sign the Award on his behalf.

¶28

10. In the case of State of Punjab & Another Vs. Jalour Singh & Others , reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 , the Supreme Court has held that where an agreement is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by the parties and annexed to the Award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties and the settlement becomes executable, as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an Award based on a settlement, it can only be done by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, the same cannot be said to be an Award of the Lok Adalat in terms of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

¶29

11. The Supreme Court has thus held that unless a settlement had been made and Award passed in terms of a settlement or compromise under Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, such an Award cannot be said to be an Award, as it has been made contrary to law and beyond the power and jurisdiction to the Lok Adalat. An Award made in the absence of any settlement

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

would be void in the eyes of law.

¶32

12. In the present case, there is nothing to show that any settlement has been arrived at between the parties and signed by the parties, on the basis of which the Award dated 11.09.2021 could have been issued. Further, the Award dated 11.09.2021 also does not contain the signature of the petitioner and in fact contains the signature of one C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli over the name Zosiamliana (petitioner).

¶33

13. In that view of the matter, the Award dated 11.09.2021 having been made in violation of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the same is void, as the Award cannot be said to be an Award in terms of Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The impugned Award is accordingly set aside.

¶34

14. The matter is remanded back to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei, who shall attempt a compromise afresh between the parties. If no compromise/settlement is forthcoming, the matter may be sent back to the learned Trial Court for disposal as per law.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 11.09.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat in the National Lok Adalat (recording a purported settlement obliging the petitioner to pay Rs. 700,000/- within 6 months), under execution as Execution Suit No. 24/2023; set aside by this Court as void.¶2
Lok Adalat, Lunglei (National Lok Adalat) · 11.09.2021
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed Money Suit No. 48/2019 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the petitioner (loan amount); petitioner deposited land document LSC No. 166/1996 as security; the Money Suit was thereafter sent to the Lok Adalat, Lunglei for attempting a settlement.¶4
Prior proceeding
Lok Adalat Award dated 11.09.2021 recorded an agreement between the parties whereby the petitioner was to pay Rs. 700,000/- to the respondent within 6 months, whereafter LSC No. 166/1996 was to be returned by the respondent to the petitioner.¶5
Prior proceeding
The Award dated 11.09.2021 was submitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for execution by the respondent and was registered as Execution Suit No. 24/2023.¶6
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's challenge: the Award was not signed by him but by junior counsel C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli (junior of Z.D. Lalnunsanga) without his permission; no settlement was made; prayer that the Award dated 11.09.2021 be set aside.¶6
Prior proceeding
Affidavit dated 26.06.2024 executed by the petitioner's District Court counsel Sh. Z.D. Lalnunsanga: he had not directed his junior C. Julie Malsawmdawngzeli to sign any document in the Lok Adalat, she was not authorized by the petitioner, and she was forced by the Members of the Lok Adalat to sign on behalf of the petitioner.¶8
Prior proceeding
Notice was sent to the respondent by registered post with A/D on 02.07.2024; there was no return of A/D card or unserved notice.¶2
Prior proceeding
Operation of Execution Suit No. 24/2023 was stayed vide Order dated 20.08.2024; despite the stay, no one appeared for the respondent.¶2
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted affidavit dated 06.11.2024 indicating notice had been served upon the respondent by way of Dasti service.¶2

Sh. Zosiamliana v. Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Zosiamliana v. Sh. Jacob Lalpekhlua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Teresa Lalnithangi and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram r/b Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 3 Ors.

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatia and 7 Ors. Vs The Union of India

M/S. Cinnamara Roller Flour Mills Vs the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Sh. Thangdoliana Vs The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

Md. Faruk Ahmed Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Akkabar Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.