Dismissed

Babu George v. Nanduvally Financiers

Kerala HC11 Jul 2013WA/1192/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal filed by Babu George challenging a Lok Adalath award regarding a pathway dispute. The court rejected the appellant's claim that he misunderstood the agreed width, holding that without patent illegality, an award cannot be reopened based on factual misunderstanding.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; no interference with the Lok Adalath award was granted.

Babu George Vs Nanduvally Financiers — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013/20TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶6

WA.No. 1192 of 2010 ( ) ------------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30839/2005 DATED 05-12-2008

¶8

APPELLANT(S):

¶9

BABU GEORGE, LAYA GARDENS, UMBERNADU MURI, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. NADUVALLY FINANCERS REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, SAM VARGHSE, NADAVALLIL PYNUMCODE, MAVELIKARA

¶13

2. LOK ADALATH, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, MAVELIKKARA, REPRESETED BY SECRETARY LOK ADALATH.

¶14

BY SRI.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶17

Writ Appeal No.1192 of 2010 -------------------------------------------Dated this, the 11^th day of July, 2013

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Manjula Chellur,C.J.:

¶20

The appellant is the writ petitioner who challenged Ext.P1 award passed by the Lok Adalath in conciliatory proceedings while settling the dispute between the parties in the suit filed by the respondent herein regarding a pathway. The contention of the petitioner is that he was under the impression that the width of the pathway would be 12' and not 16'. This is purely touching factual situation. Having signed the compromise petition followed by an award, whether the petitioner/appellant could turn around and challenge the same; on the ground that his understanding was that the pathway would be only 12' width and not 16'.

¶21

The terms of the compromise clearly mentions that the width of pathway is as per 'C' Schedule in the plaint which describes the width as 16'. We fail to understand how the appellant is justified in saying, he was under the impression that it was only 12'. It is well settled that unless

¶22

Writ Appeal No.1192 of 2010 :2:

¶23

there is patent illegality in the award passed, there is no question of reopening the issue and deciding the merits of the case or dispute between the parties. We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶24

Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶26

jma/

¶27

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶28

//true copy//

¶29

P.A to Judge

Babu George v. Nanduvally Financiers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu George v. Nanduvally Financiers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charitable Educational and Welfare Society, Represented by Its Chairman, K.J.Abraham Vs Government of India

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan.v.K. Vs Medical Officer

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S.Nagoorar Enterprises

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S.En Yes Kay Enterprises

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Palakkad District Textile Labour Union