Adalat

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97, 99, and 101 — Powers of Executing Court regarding Lok Adalat Awards — Held, while these provisions enable an Executing Court to address incidental questions during execution (such as the extent of enforceability against a person in possession), they do not authorize the court to examine the validity of the award itself or declare the decree based upon it void - The Executing Court has no authority to annul or set aside a decree that embodies a Lok Adalat award, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise. Filing objections in execution cannot be treated as an "efficacious alternative remedy" that bars writ relief. [Paras 15-19] Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1188

Compromise/Settlement – Mediation – Supreme Court – Power of Trust, Simplicity, and Efficacy in Dispute Resolution - A protracted litigation, spanning almost four decades, was successfully resolved through mediation efforts undertaken by Senior Advocate, appointed by the Court, who travelled to Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, interacted with rival family members, and inspected the properties - Supreme Court lauded the efforts, noting that the resolution was a direct consequence of the parties trusting the mediator. Raksha Devi v. Parkash Chand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 998 : 2025 INSC 1216

Conciliation - Features of - i. Conciliation is not an adjudicatory or judicial process where the conciliator hears the parties and decides a dispute. ii. The parties to the conciliation resolve their disputes through settlement, whose terms may be arrived at with the assistance of the conciliator. The role of the conciliator is to guide and assist the parties in arriving at a compromise or settlement, make proposals for settlement, formulate the terms of settlement or assist the parties in doing so, and reformulate the terms of settlement based on the observations of the parties. iii. The conciliator must be guided by the principles of independence, impartiality, objectivity, justice, equity, fair play, fairness, and confidentiality, and must also consider the rights and obligations of the parties, trade usages, and business practices between the parties. He must also take into account the wishes of the parties and the need for speedy settlement of dispute. The parties must also cooperate with the conciliator in good faith and endeavour to comply with the conciliator's requests. iv. Finally, the terms of the settlement that are recorded in a settlement agreement must be signed by the parties and it shall be final and binding on them. The same is enforceable as an arbitral award. (Para 25) Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2025 INSC 864 : 2025 (5) ABR 660

Execution of Compromise Decree – Burden of Proof – Discussed. [Paras 24- 28] Kapadam Sangalappa v. Kamatam Sangalappa, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1093 : 2025 INSC 1307

Interestingly, Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance, both in criminal and civil law. From Adalat (Adalat means 'Court') to Halafnama (Halafnama means 'affidavit') to Peshi (Peshi means 'appearance' or 'presence'), the influence of Urdu is writ large in the language of the Indian Courts. For that matter, even though the official language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as per Article 348 of the Constitution is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till date. These include vakalatnama, dasti, etc. Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 427 : 2025 INSC 486 : AIR 2025 SC (Civil) 1558 : (2025) 7 SCC 293

It is a matter of common knowledge that large number of motor accident cases are settled in Lok Adalats at the stage of Tribunal and some percentage at the appeal level. In the Lok Adalat recently held in the Supreme Court some matters were disposed of. (Para 14.3) Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : 2025 INSC 361 : AIR 2025 SC 1713 : (2025) 9 SCC 539

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Importance of legal representation and particularly for those economically or socially less fortunate – Discussed. (Para 23) Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2025 INSC 225

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Sections 21 and 22E — Challenge to Lok Adalat Award — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Held, the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy - The validity of such an award cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating execution proceedings as a vehicle for setting it aside - The only recognized avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature - This applies equally to a party to the award and a third party affected by it. [Relied on State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660; Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480; Paras 8-14] Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1188

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Section 22(c)(1) provides that the permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in matters where the value of the property in dispute exceeds 10 lakh rupees. (Para 9) Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2025 INSC 593

Mediation is a consensual process and cannot be thrust upon unwilling parties, particularly in contempt proceedings where compliance with judicial orders is at stake. (Para 9, 10, 12) Rupa and Co. v. Firhad Hakim, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233 : 2025 INSC 245

Promoting mediation, holding of Lok Adalats and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Section 138 NI Act cases – Discussed. (Para 36) Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952 : 2025 INSC 1158

Refund court fees - The petitioner sought a refund of court fees paid in the trial court, first appellate court, and second appellate court after the High Court decided the second appeal based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for a refund, holding that no grounds for refund were made out. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that refund of court fees is permissible only if the case is resolved through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalat or mediation), and not in cases of out-of-court settlements. Since the settlement in this case was not reached through any of the aforementioned mechanisms, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of court fees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's refusal to refund court fees, as the settlement was not reached through a formal dispute resolution mechanism. Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Swadeshi Mediation – Lawyers as Mediators – Cultivating New Skills- Supreme Court emphasized the power of trust, simplicity, and efficacy of persuasion through mediation as opposed to adversarial litigation - Observed that if lawyers are to evolve as mediators, they must cultivate a distinct set of skills and adopt a new attitude towards dispute resolution, one that diverges from adversarial litigation - The fundamental principle for this evolution is to "listen, rather than speak," where "Mediators speak by listening" - The model envisioned by the Court, termed "Swadeshi Mediation," involves transcending the binary often embedded in western approaches that separate professionalism from individual character, by affirming that "Goodness is an essential value, it is neither divorced from professionalism nor unattainable through power of the will" - This process requires the mediator to shed argumentative skills and adversarial demeanour. [Paras 5-8] Raksha Devi v. Parkash Chand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 998 : 2025 INSC 1216