This single-judge writ court dismissed a petition challenging an Adalat order. The court held awards of the Legal Services Authority are not amenable to challenge and noted the petitioner's failure to pay restoration costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 37180 of 2004 (A)
PETITIONER :
K.S.SEBASTIAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU KARA, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
RESPONDENT(S):
1. JOSEKUTTY JOHNY, KAPPILUMKKAL HOUSE, VELLAPPATTU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.
2. LISSY JOSE, W/O.JOSEKUTTY, KAPPILUMKKAL HOUSE, VELLAPPATTU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016 , THE COURT ON 31-05-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.37180/2004
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C).No.37180/04
2
petitioner. Further, the Registry has also noted that the writ petition had once been dismissed for default and had been restored on condition of payment of cost and that such cost had not been reported to be paid.
In the above circumstances, on merits as well as on account of non-payment of costs as condition for restoration of W.P.C, this writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an award passed under the Legal Services Authority Act by an Adalat is amenable to challenge before this Court.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the non-payment of costs as a condition for restoration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomas v. Thomas JobRelied on¶32
Thomas v. Thomas Job [2005(3) KLT 1042]
Rajeswary v. SoorajRelied on¶32
Rajeswary v. Sooraj [2006(1) KLT 203]
K.S. Sebastian
Josekutty Johnny
Lissy Jose
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Anu Sivaraman
Parties & counsel
