Allowed

Madan Dubey v. Jay Prakash Pandey and Anr.

Patna HC7 Jan 2016CWJC/15449/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order by a Permanent Lok Adalat that proceeded with a miscellaneous case seeking to set aside an award. Relying on 2012(2) PLJR 184 and the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the court held the Adalat lacked power to review the award and quashed the proceeding, directing the petitioner to approach a competent court for fraud claims.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceeding on the file of the Lok Adalat is quashed. Writ application allowed.

Madan Dubey Vs Jay Prakash Pandey and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15449 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Madan Dubey S/O Late Vikrama Dubey R/O Village- Manoharpur, P.S.Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Jay Prakash Pandey S/O Ramnath Pandey R/O Village- Mohan Bigaha, P.S.- Dihari, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 2. Om Prakash Pandey S/O Ramnath Pandey R/O Village- Mohan Bigaha, P.S.- Dihari, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶4

6 07-01-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur in Misc. Case No.17 of 2011 is under challenge. The respondent approached Lok Adalat for setting aside the award passed on 09.04.2008 alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner appeared and raised an issue with regard to maintainability of the proceeding. The same was not accepted and the proceeding was directed to continue for evidence. The said order is under challenge.

¶5

It has been submitted, inter alia, that Lok Adalat has no power of review. In this regard, the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this court since reported in 2012(2) PLJR 184

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.15449 of 2012 (6) dt.07-01-2016

¶7

2/2

¶8

Paragraph 14 & 15 thereof has been placed. It thus appears that in absence of any provision under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and law enunciated in the aforesaid case, the Lok Adalat committed an apparent error in proceeding with the miscellaneous case being Misc. Case No. 17 of 2011 filed by the respondent.

¶9

Mr. Pratap has however supported the impugned order. It is submitted the ex-facie a fraud was committed in obtaining the award.

¶10

Having considered the rival submission and in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned case and the provision of the Act, I am satisfied that the order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat impugned in the writ petition merits to be interfered with and set aside. The respondent is not remediless. They may approach the court of competent jurisdiction for setting aside the award on the ground of having obtained the same by playing fraud and misrepresentation.

¶11

The writ application is allowed. Impugned proceeding on the file of the Lok Adalat is quashed.

¶12

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶13

HR/-

¶14

Madan Dubey v. Jay Prakash Pandey and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Dubey v. Jay Prakash Pandey and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Moinul Haque Vs Mansoor Alam and Anr.

Braj Kishore Prasad Vs The Patna Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Ram Narain Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nalanda Zila Khadi Gramodyog S Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar Asainik Seva Swabalambi Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs The Chairman Cum M.d.d. Bank Of India and Ors.