SAHA SPRAGE LIMITED Vs. INKA ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the original defendant in Summary Suit No. 42 of 2003, against the award passed by the Lok Adalat No. 4 in the said Suit, dated 16.12.2006. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the Summary Suit be restored and heard on merits, within a time -bound period. The brief facts of the case as emerging from the Memorandum of the petition are that, the petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of "Electro" appliances in different parts of the country. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent, who was to act as an agent of the petitioner Company on commission basis. There was a dispute regarding the amount of commission, therefore, the respondent filed the above -mentioned Suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. A settlement was arrived at between the parties, therefore, the Suit was listed before the Lok Adalat No. 4, on 16.12.2006. As per the terms of the settlement, the Lok Adalat passed an award, on 16.12.2006. The said award is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) MR . I.M. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Lok Adalat is bad in law, unjust and unconstitutional, as it has been passed without application of mind. That while passing the impugned award, the Lok Adalat has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it and that has caused grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. That the Lok Adalat has gravely erred in passing the decree of Rs. 29,62,612/ - against the petitioner, as the settlement amount between the parties is Rs. 13,50,000/ - only. That the Lok Adalat has committed an error in holding that the respondent (original plaintiff) shall be entitled to execute the decree in case of any two defaults mentioned in the Terms of Settlement. That the petitioner has paid the full amount to the respondent, but due to financial constraints, the payment could not be made within the period of time mentioned in the Terms of Settlement. The respondent has initiated execution proceedings that are pending before the Executing Court, which has necessitated the filing of the present petition.

(3.) THIS Court has heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned award of the Lok Adalat and other documents on record.