Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 66 (BOM)

MAYABAI w/o MAHADEO WANDRE v. RAMRAO KISAN CHOUKE

2007-01-17

A.H.JOSHI

body2007
ORAL JUDGMENT : - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Heard. 3. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the Award passed by the Lok Nyayalaya on the basis of consent. 4. The ground of challenge is that the consent was not voluntary. The Advocate for the petitioner acted unauthorizedly and led the petitioner herein to sign the consent without knowing the contents, rather on a clear understanding that the A ward was not to be acted upon. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner urges that judicial review of order of Lok Adalat is permissible, and placed reliance on following reported Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court in the cases of :- (a) P. T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478 , and (b) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shabbir M. Attarwala and others, 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 473 , to urge and contend that the A ward or the Decree of the Lok Nyayalaya is capable of judicial review. 6. From the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it is seen on facts therein that it was a case where the Insurance Company, who was a contesting party, and had not accorded its consent for settlement, however, was ordered by Lok Nyayalaya to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation. It was, thus, a clear case that the Lok Adalat had, in fact, adjudicated, and did not pass Award on settlement, Lok Adalat was bound to record to the Court when no settlement was arrived at. This Judgment, therefore, has no application to the present case. 7. While delivering this Judgment in case discussed in foregoing para, the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the reported case of P. T. Thomas (supra). The dictum of Supreme Court is, in fact, contrary to what learned Advocate Mr. Salim Khan is arguing. 8. Moreover, on facts, it is seen that the petitioner urges that on record his consent exists, however, said consent was induced by fraud. The petitioner has brought in the issue and the question 'free consent'. Whether petitioner's consent was vitiated due to fraud is a disputed question of fact, which needs full trial, and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has brought in the issue and the question 'free consent'. Whether petitioner's consent was vitiated due to fraud is a disputed question of fact, which needs full trial, and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would be free to take proper recourse as may be advised. 9. The Writ Petition, therefore, cannot be entertained and it is accordingly dismissed. 10. Rule is discharged. Writ petition dismissed.