Lok Adalat And Mediation Are Two Distinct Methods And Cannot Be Equated: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Lok Adalat and mediation are two distinct methods and cannot be equated.
The Court discussed the scope of refund of Court fees after the settlement of a dispute under Section 89 of the CPC. It was clarified that while Lok Adalat awards are equated to decrees under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act), mediation settlements are different and governed solely by Section 89 of the CPC.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held that “reference to CFA, 1870 in respect of refund of court fees when the matter is settled by way of an Award of Lok Adalat does not mean that the same shall be extended to the settlement of dispute by mediation for the simple reason that Lok Adalat and mediation are two distinct methods and cannot be equated.”
AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh represented the Appellants, while ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared for the Respondents.
The dispute in this case was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the CPC and, amicably resolved. The terms of settlement were presented to the Civil Court and the Civil Suit was disposed of in terms of the said compromise. A request for a refund of Court fees was allowed only to the extent of 50%.
The Appellant contended before the High Court that the Civil Court fell in error by allowing a refund only to the extent of 50% in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (CFA). It was further contended that as per Section 21 of the LSA Act when a matter was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) of the said Act and a compromise or settlement arrived at therein, the Court Fee paid in such a matter shall also be refunded in accordance with CFA.
Therefore, the Appellant argued that the LSA Act being a Central legislation, would override the State enactment.
However, the Bombay High Court held that the CFA was a pre-constitutional enactment which no longer applied to the State of Maharashtra after the enactment of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959
The Supreme Court held, “It is inconceivable as to how a reference to mediation under the CPC can be read to be the same or equal to proceeding before a Lok Adalat for any reference thereto, to be helpful to the case put forward by the appellant. Simply because a refund under CFA, 1870 is statutorily prescribed, to be given when a dispute is settled by way of a Lok Adalat, does by no stretch of the imagination mean by the exact situation be adopted to the settlement of a dispute by mediation. This argument has to be necessarily rejected.”
However, considering the fact that the original dispute was settled amicably and that the amount of court fees involved was not excessive, the Court held that “in the peculiar facts of this case, for it not to be a binding precedent, we are of the view that the same can be refunded to him.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1004)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh; Advocate Nishant Sharma
Respondents: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee; Advocates Akshay Nain, Akshit Pradhan, Bhuvan Mishra, Ruchi Gour Narula, Aarushi Singh, Rukmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Soumya Priyadarshinee, Amit Srivastava, Amlaan Kumar and Vinayak Aren; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
