PRASANTH P.KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale with the 4th respondent herein. The 4 th respondent paid an advance amount in excess of Rs.90.00 lakhs. However, for one reason or another, the sale did not take place. The 4 th respondent sought the return of the advance amount. The petitioners were also ready to refund the advance amount, in terms of the agreement for sale. But since the petitioners did not refund the advance amount, the 4 th respondent herein instituted an application/complaint at Ext.P2, before the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Authority. The afore application is presented on 18/10/2022. The petitioners were directed to appear they state, by telephone and on the basis of the afore direction, the petitioners also admit that they appeared before the 3rd respondent on the very next day, on 19/10/2022, along with a lawyer. By Ext.P3 award, the 3rd respondent Committee recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.98,35,000.00 on or before 5/4/2023. Post-dated cheques issued by the petitioners were also handed over to the 4 th respondent herein. However, the 4 th respondent sought to execute Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P4 execution petition. The cheques issued by the petitioners were also not honoured. It is also to be noticed that the execution petition was presented on 10/4/2023. The petitioners also entered appearance and sought to object the execution petition. It is even after all the above, that on 25/11/2023, they instituted the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge the award at Ext.P3.

(2.) Heard Sri. T.M. Raman Kartha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K. Shaj , the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Smt. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the entire proceedings leading to Ext.P3 could not be sustained for more than one reason. According to him, the award at Ext.P3 is on account of a fraud played on the petitioners. Secondly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction to issue an award in the nature of Ext.P3 with reference to the mandate under Sec. 19(5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').