The Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Gauri Godse, quashed the award passed by the Lok Adalat in a property dispute involving Madhukar Baburao Shete, a senior citizen with significant physical disability. The petitioner, Madhukar Baburao Shete, challenged the award on the grounds that he was unaware of the settlement terms and alleged that his signature was obtained under undue influence. The court found that the mandatory procedure under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was not followed, particularly the requirement of making a valid reference to the Lok Adalat. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that legal processes are strictly adhered to.

Introduction

This case revolves around a property dispute where the petitioner, Madhukar Baburao Shete, aged 75 with a 95% physical disability, challenged the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The award was based on a settlement that the petitioner claimed he never intended to agree to and that his signature was obtained through coercion.

Facts of the Case

The dispute began with a Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 filed by Yogesh Trimbak Shete, the respondent and nephew of the petitioner, in the Civil Court at Barshi. The petitioner argued that he had never received the suit summons and that the Lok Adalat's award was granted without following due legal procedures.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner, being physically disabled and unaware of the settlement details, was misled into signing the compromise terms. It was contended that no valid reference under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was made, thereby invalidating the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction to pass the award. The petitioner sought to have the award quashed based on these procedural lapses.

Respondent’s Counterarguments

The respondent's counsel defended the Lok Adalat’s award, asserting that the petitioner voluntarily appeared before the panel and signed the compromise pursis. The counsel argued that the petitioner’s claims were baseless and that the award created substantive rights in favor of the respondent, which should not be disturbed.

Court's Analysis

Justice Gauri Godse examined the procedural requirements under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly the necessity of a valid reference to the Lok Adalat. The court found that the mandatory legal procedures were not followed, and the settlement was not validly referred to the Lok Adalat. The court emphasized that adherence to legal protocols is crucial to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court set aside the Lok Adalat's award, upholding the petitioner's challenge. The court's decision highlighted the significance of following proper legal procedures, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals like senior citizens. The ruling serves as a reminder that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, with strict adherence to the law.