Lok Adalat disposed of four appeals challenging an arbitration award by accepting a compromise petition signed by parties represented in court, declaring the compromise terms part of the decree and granting relief to all parties.
All four appeals disposed off in terms of compromise entered into by parties with compromise petition forming part of decree
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.
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT
HELD AT HIGH COURT PATNA
MA No. 68 of 1988
Petitioner :Ram Ran Vijay Singh Respondent :Kamlesh Kumar Singh & Ors
With
M.A. 79 of 1988
Petitioner :Kamlesh Kumar Singh Respondent :Ram Ran Vijay Singh & Ors
With
F.A. 176 of 1988
Petitioner :Kamlesh Kr.Singh & Anr Respondent :Somaya Kr.Singh & Anr
With F.A. 167 of 1988 Petitioner :Ram Ran Vijay Singh & Anr Respondent :Somaya Kr.Singh & Ors
Present:-
Member(Judicial) :Mr. Justice Gopal Prasad
Member(Legal Profession) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Against the arbitration award two suits were filed, bearing Title Suit No. 383 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 385 of 1981 in the Court of Sub Judge, I, Patna. Both the suits were decided by a common order, dated 16,01,1988, against which F.A. No. 167 of 1988 and one M.A. No. 68 of 1988 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Against the said judgment and order, dated 16.01.1988, another set of F.A. No. 176 of 1988 and another M.A. No. 79 of 1988 were also filed before the High Court. However, all the four appeals while pending, the parties have filed a compromise petition duly signed by the parties and their Advocates.
The learned counsel for the parties submitted that all parties are present in Court, except Shashi Singh (appellant no. 1c) though it has been stated that she is not well though she is a party to the compromise petition and has put her signature and it is submitted that the parties have compromised in terms of the compromise petition
Hence, M.A. No. 68 of 1988, M.A. No. 79 of 1988, F.A. No. 176 of 1988 and F.A. No. 167 of 1988 are disposed off in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties and compromise petition, filed by the parties, shall be a part of the decree.
( Gopal Prasad, J. ) (Shashi Bhushan Kumar)
Member(Judicial) Member(Legal Profession) Date :11-04-2015
Petitioner/Petitioner's representative
Respondent/Respondent's representative
(Seal of the Authority)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pending appeals challenges against arbitration award decree may be disposed of by way of lump sum compromise petition filed by parties
Whether compromise petition signed by all parties except one who is unwell but has signed constitutes valid compromise for disposition of all four appeals
Whether compromise entered into between parties shall form part of decree
Ram Ran Vijay Singh
Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Kamlesh Kr. Singh & Anr
Somaya Kr. Singh & Anr
Gopal Prasad
Shashi Bhushan Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
