Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Canara Bank VS G. S. Jayarama...
Checking relevance for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) VS Yunus...
Checking relevance for B. P. MOIDEEN SEVAMANDIR VS A. M. KUTTY HASSAN...
Checking relevance for K. Srinivasappa VS M. Mallamma...
Checking relevance for State of Punjab VS Jalour Singh...
Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Ganpat Raj...
Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Phulan Rani...
Checking relevance for Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao VS District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalath)...
2022 0 Supreme(AP) 17 : A third party to a Lok Adalat award may not challenge the award through a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India unless there is prima-facie evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion in obtaining the award. Ordinarily, the remedy for a third party is to institute a separate civil suit within the period of limitation to seek a declaration that the Lok Adalat award is not binding on them. However, in extraordinary cases where a third party is subjected to injustice due to fraudulent or collusive proceedings, a writ petition may be maintainable if fraud or misrepresentation is established. The award of a Lok Adalat is treated as final and binding, and judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases where there was no genuine compromise, or where the compromise is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation.Checking relevance for Chandpasha S/o Amirsab Ansari VS Ejaz S/o Amirsab Ansari...
2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 252 : The remedy for a third party to challenge an award passed by a Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud is to either prefer an independent civil suit or approach the High Court. This is based on the principle that Lok Adalat awards are final and binding on the parties, and third parties not impleaded in the original proceeding cannot directly challenge the award through a writ petition unless there is prima facie evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. In such cases, the third party may maintain a writ petition within a reasonable period, but otherwise, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit for declaration that the award is not binding on them.Checking relevance for N. Umesha, S/o Sri Narayanappa VS Bhagyamma @ Bhagamma W/O Sri Govindappam...
2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 295 : The remedy for a third party to a Lok Adalat award is to institute a separate suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law to seek an appropriate decree, including a declaration that the Lok Adalat award is not binding on them. This is the primary and preferred remedy, especially when the third party is not a party to the compromise or settlement that led to the award. While the award is generally final and binding on parties and those claiming under them, and not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, a third party may challenge it in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in extraordinary cases involving prima facie evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion by the parties to the settlement. However, even in such cases, if the issues involve complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, the third party should be directed to seek redressal in a civil court rather than invoking the High Court''''s extraordinary jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Savithri VS Evusula Gangamma...
2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 265 : A third party who is prejudiced by a Lok Adalat award may generally not challenge the award in a writ petition, even if the award causes them harm. The remedy for such a third party is to institute a separate suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law to seek appropriate redressal, including a declaration that the Lok Adalat award is not binding on them. However, in extraordinary cases where there is prima-facie evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion by the parties to obtain the award for the purpose of defeating the third party''''s rights, the third party may maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Checking relevance for Gudela Anuradha VS R. V. Satyanarayana Murthy...
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1377 : A third party may maintain a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge a Lok Adalat award on the ground of ''''fraud'''' or ''''misrepresentation'''' if such fraud is prima facie evidenced and is intended to defeat the rights of the third party. However, if the allegations involve complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, the third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil court rather than filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
