CRL.M.C Nos. 5401 & 5402 of 2021 These two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases concern quashing of prosecution under Crime Nos. 877/2021 and 873/2021 of the Thadiyattaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam, in the context of private settlement between the parties. The petitioners Sajith P.A. and Muhammed Shafi (5401) and Muhammed Shafi and Nibin S.N. (5402), sought to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings, on the basis that the disputes were private and settled with the victims, who had no objection to quashing. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed the private nature of the offences and highlighted the affidavits of the victims supporting settlement. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged settlement but cautioned against quashing solely on that basis. The Court, citing the Supreme Court rulings in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, held that quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved, provided the offence is not heinous or against public interest, and not under special statutes. The court found the offences in these cases to be private in nature and acceptable the settlement, thereby quashing the proceedings. The judgment emphasizes a careful, fact-specific assessment and the antecedents of the accused when invoking CrPC 482.
This writ petition questions the grace-marks regime for NCC cadets in Kerala. Petitioners, 15 cadets, had obtained B certificates after NCC training and participated in republic day and national camps. Historically, grace marks were granted for parade training with 5% extra for 75% attendance, plus another 5% for cadets who completed various training camps. In 2023, a letter from the 3rd respondent suggested 5% for Covid-relief participation with 75% attendance, and 10% for those with corporal ranks or higher, A/B certificate, and camp participation. In 2023, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P4, curbing total grace marks for extracurricular activities, despite Ext.P3 (which enumerated higher marks for Scouts and Guides, Chief Minister Shield, Rashtrapati Award, etc.). Ext.P3 was later revised by Ext.P4. Petitioners contend NCC cadets were arbitrarily disregarded in Ext.P4, and the matter drew Court directions on 12.07.2023. Respondents issued Government Order No.4367/2023/GEDN dated 01.08.2023, stating that after careful examination the NCC cadets would be granted marks as per the schedule appended to the GO. The Court allowed the petition, quashed Ext.P9, and directed the respondents to award grace marks to petitioners in line with the 01.08.2023 GO, applying uniformly to all NCC cadets in the State.
CRL.MC 929/2015; CRL.R.P 1502/2015 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (CRL.MC 929/2015) and accompanying criminal revision petition (CRL.R.P. 1502/2015) arising from orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in CP 4/2014. The matter concerns the death of three persons found hanging in a single-room structure attached to a roof, investigated by the CBI. The initial final report was rejected by the CJM on 26/07/2013 for grave deficiencies, including unexplained ante mortem injuries, blood stains, and an implausible “lock from outside” scenario. A supplementary report followed, but the petitioners contended it was concocted and devoid of legal basis, with no proper addressing of key issues. The petitioners (a journalist-activist and a defacto complainant relative) sought a fresh, independent investigation under a senior CBI officer. The Respondents, CBI and the State, argued that the investigation had progressed and that oversight was adequate. The High Court ultimately held that the investigation was defective and exercised its power to set aside the CJM’s orders, directing a renewed, thorough investigation to be conducted by the CBI within four months, under the supervision of a senior officer, and to constitute a new investigation team. The petitions are allowed accordingly, with an emphasis on justice and accountability in the investigation.
This High Court of Kerala, in OP(CAT) No.84 of 2021, heard a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam) order dismissing the applicant’s OA 444/2021 for IPS promotion to the Kerala cadre in 2018. The petitioner, a senior State Police Service officer, contends that his ACR for 2014 was upgraded in 2020, and that the Selection Committee failed to consider this upgraded record when grading him “good” for overall suitability, instead relying on the original 2014 entry along with ACRs for 2013–2017 (which were mostly “good” or “very good”). He argues UPSC should scrutinize the selection process and rectify any irregularities. The respondents rely on Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that courts should not impugn the assessment of a Selection Committee unless malafides, bias or arbitrariness is shown. The Tribunal had relied on rulings including Union PCS v. M.Sathya Priya, M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, and UPSC v. H.L. Dev to restrict judicial review to exceptions, and observed that there is no obligation to record detailed reasons absent malafides. The High Court agrees that upgrading the 2014 ACR after the Selection Committee met is irregular and that the committee’s prior consideration remains intact. Consequently, nothing turns on the upgraded ACR, and the O.A. is not warranting interference. The petition is dismissed; the CAT order stands. The court thus declines to re-weigh the evidence or re-adjudicate the selection outcome.
Crl.R.P. Nos.1655 & 1660/2010 These two criminal revision petitions challenge a common conviction for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from two linked complaints (C.C. Nos. 422/2007 and 423/2007) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The trial court convicted the petitioner Annamma Sunny and, on a common judgment, awarded a joint sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment with a total fine of Rs.6,00,000 and directed payment of compensation under Sec. 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The appellate sessions court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence. The High Court (Alexander Thomas, J., single) heard the two revision petitions together and affirmed the convictions but restructured the sentences: in C.C.422/2007 the accused is to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay Rs.3,00,000 as compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C; in C.C.423/2007 the sentence is imprisonment till rising of the court with Rs.4,00,000 compensation. Deductions were made for Rs.2,00,000 already deposited, with Rs.1,00,000 (C.C.422/2007) and Rs.2,00,000 (C.C.423/2007) to be paid within five months. Coercive proceedings are deferred; appearance is mandated on 21.4.2018. The petitions are disposed of with directions reflecting a balance between compensation and punitive aspects, aligning with modern Supreme Court authority on Sec.138, while preserving fair remedies for the complainant.
Sholy George, the petitioner mother, seeks permanent custody of her 13½-year-old son Anand Mathew in O.P.(G&W) No.264/2021 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The respondent father filed I.A.1/2022 seeking interim custody, and the petitioner opposed it, leading to an order dated 20 July 2022 granting the father monthly interaction with the child on the first Saturday from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in the Family Court premises. The petitioner alleges the father suffers from bipolar disorder and exhibits emotional volatility, warning that such contact could expose the child to mental stress. She urges that any contact be supervised by a court officer. The respondent counters that the fear is unfounded and he has a right to interact with his child, arguing there is no danger of mood change. The court cites Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan to emphasize that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that visitation must be grounded in the child’s best interests, with consideration for both parents. It also notes the need to define visitation rights and to provide reasons if visitation is denied. The Original Petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order to direct that interaction occur under supervision by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, or an authorised staff member, thereby balancing parental contact with the child’s welfare.
This writ appeal arises from a 24 January 2020 order of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, dismissing a writ petition challenging Exhibit-P4 award dated 27 October 2017 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (the Council) under the Micro and Small Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The appellant, Manveer Oberoi, is the director of H.S. Oberoi Build Tech Pvt. Ltd., with a reference by M.R. Subramanian, Managing Director of Adtech System Ltd., for recovery of Rs 14,47,930 with interest. The conciliation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2006, failed to settle; the Council then proceeded on merits and awarded Rs 13,47,180 with interest at three times the bank rate from 2.9.2014 to realization. The writ petition sought to quash the award and direct the Council to consider contentions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Judge held that challenging an Award under Section 18(3) of the Act via Article 226 is not permissible because the pre-deposit under Section 19 is mandatory. The Division Bench ultimately held that the statutory remedy must be pursued and there was no exceptional circumstance to bypass it; the writ appeal was dismissed.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 769 of 2015) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the MACT, Pala award in O.P.(M.V.) No.1094/2012 arising from a 6 April 2012 accident in which Jolly George died and several others were injured. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal’s award was criticized as inadequate in quantum across several heads. Ext.A37 shows the deceased ran a poultry farm; the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000, which the appellants contend is too low. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the appellants urge that notional income for 2012 should be higher; the High Court agrees there was evidence of poultry farming and proposes a minimal enhancement to Rs.10,000 per month. The court then reconsiders other heads: consortium for three dependants at Rs.40,000 each; loss of estate at Rs.15,000; but funeral expenses reduced to Rs.15,000 (from Rs.25,000) as per Pranay Sethi principles; pain and suffering and love-and-affection payments of Rs.25,000 each are struck off in light of Oriental Insurance v. Kahlon. The court applies Pranay Sethi to grant 25% of income toward future prospects and a 10% overall enhancement. In total, enhanced compensation is fixed at Rs.14,75,000 against Rs.9,51,200 in the original award. Interest on the enhanced amount is directed at 5% from the petition date with NEFT/RTGS transfer, and set-off for any prior payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent with these directions and computations.
The appellant, Robin Mathew, was the Vicar of St. Sebastian Church, Kottiyoor, Kannur, convicted by the trial court for penetrative sexual assault and rape of a teenage girl (PW1) and sentenced under the IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court narrative reviews that ten accused were charged; the trial court convicted A1 (the appellant) while others were acquitted; the Supreme Court had previously quashed charges against other accused in a related matter (Sr. Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala). The core issue here is age determination of the victim (PW1) and whether the POCSO charges were correctly framed and proven, especially since the victim’s age (below 18 at the time) is central to invoking POCSO. The judge undertakes a detailed analysis of documentary age proof under the JJ Act, 2015 and JJ Rules, 2007, while acknowledging authorities like Mahadeo, Jarnail Singh, Anoop Singh, Rajan, Alex, Madhu, and K.Raghavan to determine admissible evidence for age. The Court ultimately upholds conviction for POCSO offences and modifies the IPC conviction from 376(2)(f) to 376(1) (rape). The sentence is set at ten years’ rigorous imprisonment plus fine, with set-off under CrPC 428; no separate sentences for other offences are imposed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with caution on aging evidence and the statutory framework protecting minors.
WP(C) Nos.6461/2021 & 18072/2021 These writ petitions concern the running of a Kennel Farm in Mazhuvannoor Grama Panchayat. The petitioners in WP(C)6461/2021 allege illegal kennel activities conducted by the 4th respondent, including a growing dog pack exceeding 50 animals, construction of dog cages around the property, and operation without requisite licences, building permits, or adherence to Pollution Control Board (PCB) conditions. They contend the kennel causes environmental pollution and nuisance to residents, and they request the Panchayat and PCB to stop the activities and remove dogs and cages. The 4th respondent counters that he is a reputed breeder of Great Danes and has constructed a kennel on 0.83 acre with a plinth area of 251.60 square meters; he argues that Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2019 exempt kennels from building permits when the number of dogs is below six, and that his earlier stop memo was issued by the Panchayat Secretary. He has since applied for regularisation (Ext.P2, P4) and obtained a PCB Consent to Operate with conditions (Ext.P7). The petitioners rely on Rule 4 of the 1998 Rules, but the court notes Rule 4 applies only if a Panchayat has passed the required resolution under Rule 3; RTI shows no such resolution. The court also cites Shaji Philip to limit the scope to domestic animals. Ultimately, the court disposes of both petitions by directing the Panchayat officer to decide the regularisation application within a month, with further action to be taken on a final order.
The petition is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.5472 of 2016) filed by C. Rajan, the accused in CC No.366/2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The petitioner seeks to quash the final report (Annex-A4) in CC No.366/2016 under section 482 Cr.P.C. The factual backdrop involves a dispute at a ration shop where the second respondent, Sajeevan M.K., is alleged to have issues relating to a ration card. An incident occurred on 7.11.2015, and an FIR was registered against the second respondent under sections 294(b) and 324 IPC (Annex-A1). A final report was filed in CC No.122/2016. In the meantime, the second respondent filed a complaint which was forwarded to the local SHO under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; the SHO registered another FIR against the petitioner under sections 323 and 341 IPC (Annex-A3) and filed Annex-A4 final report, with cognizance taken by the CJM in CC 366/2016. The petitioner advances seven grounds: falsity of allegations; belated complaint; improper forwarding under 156(3) in light of Supreme Court directions; failure to file an affidavit per Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP; obligation of the SHO upon receiving a 156(3) complaint; failure to consider prior FIR/final report; and suppression of statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. The court evaluates these grounds and, after finding most grounds non-meritorious, dismisses the petition. It holds that the Crl.M.C. lacks merit and quashing is not warranted. The order underscores the SHO’s duty to register and investigate when directed under 156(3) and affirms cognizance upon material before the court. The petition is therefore rejected and the final report stands intact.
CRL.R.P. No. 580 of 2022; CRL.R.P. No. 777 of 2022; OP(Crl.) Nos. 431 of 2022; OP(Crl.) Nos. 515 of 2022 This judgment disposes of four connected Criminal Revision Petitions (CRL.R.P. Nos. 580 and 777 of 2022) and Original Petitions (OP(Crl) Nos. 431 and 515 of 2022) arising from vigilance cases in Thiruvananthapuram. The core challenge is to a common order dated 27.06.2022 by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which had dealt with discharge petitions and the question of framing charges in CC No.15/2014 and related matters in FIR VC1/2010 (VACB). The petitions assail the sanction for prosecution of public servants (accused Nos. 1–7) and various other co-accused (including the private respondent, a builder). The Court canvasses principles on sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the interplay of sanction with trial, and the scope of the discharge/framing of charges under Sections 239–240 Cr.P.C. It also traverses complex issues of a Detailed Town Planning Scheme (Museum Kowdiar Avenue), the Town Planning Rules (DTPS, KMBR) and whether the Road Development Committee could permit deviations from zoning. The judge ultimately endorses the prosecution and frames charges, finding prima facie evidence of conspiracy involving public officials, a builder, and an architect. The petitions are dismissed with the common order’s conclusions sustained.
Jilmon John, the appellant, challenges the tender proceedings in which he had emerged successful, contending that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) after the tender notification would substantially increase his tax liability as the awardee of a works contract. He sought refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and re-notification of the tender to incorporate GST, allowing him to participate again. The learned Single Judge held that GST, though announced in 2017, was in contemplation earlier; he rejected the plea, noting that Clause 44 in Ext.P1 notification made payment of sales tax the bidder’s responsibility, with rates to be updated over time and the quoted rates untouched by tax changes. The Judge found that, even if GST would yield possible input tax credits, the bidder should have safeguarded against the risk in his bid; the State argued that the VAT/GST regime does not invalidate the contract terms. The petitioner relied on Ext.P13 judgment and on special KVAT provisions (Kerala Finance Act 2008) positing a change in regime; the bench cited Syndicate Bank v. R Veeranna to support the view that there is no automatic relief against changes brought by tax reforms. The Division Bench ultimately confirmed the dismissal of the writ petition and the WA, leaving costs to the parties.
CRL.A.No.819, 838, 883 & 931 of 2015 These appeals arise from S.C. No.247/2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court‑VI, Kollam, relating to a murder in Chadayamanagalam Police Station area on 14 January 2005. The prosecution alleged a planned attack by accused Nos.1–10: after initial altercations at a shop owned by PW1’s brother, the group trespassed into the shop premises, assaulted PW1 and ultimately stabbed the deceased (Radhakrishna Pillai) with a knife (MO1), causing multiple stab injuries and death at around 10:30 p.m. The investigation was conducted by Kadakkal Police; PW1, PW2 and PW3 testified to the overt act and sequence, with PW2 turning hostile but providing corroborative inputs in parts. Post‑mortem by PW11 established penetrating chest and abdominal injuries with death due to those wounds; blood traces on the weapon were confirmed by the FSL report (Ext.P16). The trial court convicted accused Nos.1–5 under various IPC sections including 143, 147, 148, 323, 448 and 302 r/w 149, and also under 294(b) for accused No.1, while acquitting accused Nos.6–10. On appeal, the Kerala High Court examined inconsistencies in timing, the weapon’s possession, and the reliance on hostile witnesses, ultimately upholding some findings and acquitting several co‑accused. The court partly allowed the appeal: accusing No.1’s conviction under certain sections was altered and the other accused were set at liberty, while the remaining charges against No.1 were maintained.
The captioned Original Petitions arise from a common order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 01.12.2017 in OA Nos. 2206/2017 and 2201/2017, challenging the fixation of seniority of Radiographers and X‑ray Technicians who joined the Medical Education Department after abolition of the dual control system. The petitioners were originally X‑Ray Technicians Grade‑II in the Directorate of Health Services and, after promotion, moved to the Medical Education Department (DME) and were placed as Radiographers; their seniority was to be reckoned with reference to the date of appointment as X‑Ray Technician Grade‑II under Rule 27(c) Part II KS & SSR. Annexure A10 (Ext. P9 in TA 2418/2012) issued in 2011 prescribed that radiographers in the Medical Education Services would be senior to X‑ray Technicians who opted to join those services, and even to X‑Ray Technician Grade I. The Tribunal upheld Annexure A30 (final combined seniority list) and held the petitioners’ contentions barred by res judicata in light of TA 2418/2012 and OP(KAT) 15/2016 (dismissed). The High Court, citing State of W.B. v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee & Ors (AIR 1966 SC 1065), affirmed that a binding decision of a court of competent jurisdiction remains in force and cannot be relitigated except by prescribed remedies, upholding the Tribunal’s order and dismissing the petitions. The Interlocutory Applications were also dismissed.
WA No. 583 of 2020 and batch; W.P.(C) Nos. 26/2020, 196/2020, 503/2020, 1147/2020, 1506/2020, 2256/2020, 2259/2020, 2281/2020, 3022/2020, 3065/2020, 3676/2020, 8148/2020, 9525/2020, 10436/2020, 11602/2020, 11640/2020 The writ appeal by SR Educational and Charitable Trust (the appellant) challenges Ext. P20 (27.12.2019) issued by the Government of India, directing withdrawal/cancellation of the essentiality certificate (EC) granted for establishing SR Medical College and Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, and Ext. P21(a) (05.01.2020) by the State Government to shift admitted students to other private medical colleges in Kerala. The matter traces a complex governance of medical-education permissions under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Medical Council of India Regulations, 1999, including the essentiality certificate ( Regulation 2(3)) and the 300-bed hospital criterion ( Regulation 2(5)). The Board of Governors of MCI conducted inspections revealing significant deficiencies; the Government of India, after a meeting (13.11.2019) and a subsequent minute (30.10.2019), decided to seek withdrawal of the EC, and the Kerala Government responded by withdrawing the EC and initiating shifting of students. The appellant contends lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, non-speaking orders, and that EC withdrawal cannot be sustained after long lapse. The respondents defend COI under Articles 256-257 and the regulatory framework, asserting that substratum had been lost due to serious deficiencies and non-compliance. The High Court, after extensive consideration, dismisses the appeal, upholds the GOI decision, and directs relocation of students and partial relief for examinations and results pending further orders.
This Original Petition (OP(C)) challenges Ext.P10, the Sub Court, Pala's order dated 03-01-2022 in I.A. No. 1/2020 in O.S. No. 21/2014, arising from a Lok Adalath settlement dated 28-05-2015 (Ext. P1). The compromise provided that the petitioner would pay Rs. 11,00,000 in two installments; failure would enable the respondent to seek enforcement by transferring the property covered by the sale agreement. The respondent moved I.A. No. 209/2016 to convey the property in his favour; the court allowed it (Ext. P2) and a sale deed (Ext. P3) was executed, noting a mortgage in favour of a Co-operative Bank, which the petitioner contends was not disclosed. The petitioner subsequently filed I.A. 1/2020 to recall Ext. P3 and to obtain a draft sale deed showing encumbrance with the bank, but Ext. P7 was dismissed by Ext. P10. The petitioner argues that Section 152 of the CPC authorizes correction of clerical/arithmetical errors and that the Execution Court should rectify the registered deed to conform to the decree; reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Rajbit v. Suraj Bhan. The High Court ultimately finds no error in Ext. P10, notes the bank’s encumbrance, but holds there is no enabling provision to correct Ext. P3 by rectification, and dismisses the petition. It leaves Ext. P3 intact and declines interference under Article 227."
CRL. M.C. No. 136 of 2023 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from CC 186/2016, Pathanamthitta, relating to Crime No.1526/2015, alleging offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Kerala High Court, presided by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, considers whether a 482 CrPC quashing is permissible where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and moved to quash the prosecution. The petitioners contend that the settlement, supported by affidavits of the victims, ends the matter and there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, resists quashing merely on private agreement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh), the court lays down the guiding principles: quashing non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC can be appropriate when the dispute is private, the entire dispute is resolved, and there is no public interest in continuing the case; however, the power should not be exercised for heinous or serious offences or for offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act, or crimes like murder or rape). The court also notes that elements such as the nature of injuries and weapons, and the antecedents of the accused, may be examined. After review, the court holds the dispute private and accepts the settlement, and accordingly allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes CC 186/2016 arising from Crime 1526/2015. The judgment underscores the careful, fact-specific balance between private settlement and public interest in exercising 482 CrPC powers.
This is a motor-accident claims appeal (MACA No. 176 of 2018) heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The appellant insurer challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mavelikkara’s common award in OP(MV) Nos.1290, 1421, and 1239 of 2010, arising from the death of a nine-year-old girl, Aswathy, in September 2009 on the Pandalam–Mavelikkara road when a tipper lorry allegedly ran over students returning home. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,31,060 to Rs.7,31,060 plus 9% interest and Rs.10,000 costs to the petitioners. The insurer argued the quantum was excessive, citing Supreme Court precedents: Rajendra Singh and Others v. National Insurance Co. (2020) 7 SCC 256, which prescribes a notional income of Rs.36,000 per year for minor children with 15% multiplier and 1/2 deduction; and Pranay Sethi for conventional-head awards. The insurer also challenged the 9% interest rate, urging alignment with TN Transport Corp. Ltd. The respondents urged uniform guidelines from Assainar and Ali, and cited Punjab v. Rafeeq Masih and other authorities regarding Article 142. The High Court re-assessed notional income under Assainar’s framework, fixing Rs.54,000 per year, applying multiplier 15 and a 1/3 deduction, and striking down love-and-affection and pain-and-suffering awards in light of cited authorities. The court ultimately reduced total compensation to Rs.6,56,000 and set interest at 7.5% per annum, directing deposit within two months and equal disbursement to petitioners.
This intra-court appeal under the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 challenges Ext. P3, an award of the District Legal Services Authority’s Lok Adalat in PLP No. 1418 of 2018, dated 10.03.2018. The dispute arose from a loan transaction where the 1st respondent KSFE extended Rs. 42,00,000 to the 2nd respondent on a chitty, with the appellants standing as guarantors. The 2nd respondent defaulted, and the Adalat record shows a settlement: Rs. 56,00,000 payable by 30.06.2018, with a fallback provision that Rs. 60,79,804 would be realizable with 6% interest, if payment failed. The appellants contend they were illiterate and not properly informed about Lok Adalat procedures; the Adalat proceedings largely involved the 1st respondent, with the 2nd respondent absent; Ext. P3 is asserted as not signed by the principal debtor, and there is alleged collusion between the 1st and 2nd respondents. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Appellants argue non-compliance with the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, sections 20(2), and constitutional due process, in addition to the lack of signatures. The respondents contend the appellants are liable as guarantors, the Lok Adalat is akin to a court, and the award is binding, with Section 139 not automatically discharging the surety, while Section 145 permits indemnification from the principal debtor. The Division Bench ultimately dismisses the appeal, upholding the writ court’s decision and dismissing the challenge to Ext. P3.
