WP(C). No. 18535 of 2015 (N); WP(C). No. 20593 of 2015 These writ petitions challenge a Panchayat decision denying an LPG godown license under the Kerala Panchayat Raj framework. The petitioner, Shaly K.U., had secured a building permit, combustible-proof exports, and several statutory approvals for a LPG godown (extensive exhibits P1–P7). The petitioner sought a license under Rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. Respondents rejected the license by a 16.6.2015 order (Exhibit P8) citing a policy of not permitting such establishments, a decision echoed by Exhibit P9 (14.5.2015) and the local objection process. The court notes that the basis of denial was a blanket policy rather than merits of the individual application, and cites Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy to emphasize that a panchayat cannot dismiss an application solely on policy grounds and must assess each case on its merits; Section 232 and related provisions empower the Secretary to issue licenses, with Rule 6 placing license-issuing power on the Secretary, not the President, of the Panchayat. The court records interim protections, safety compliance, and the absence of obstruction claims, proceeding to quash the challenged order and direct fresh consideration within a month, while allowing continued operation pending disposal.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A.No.1989 of 2003) challenging a conviction under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for illegal liquor sale detected at the house of the accused in Palavayal, Kasaragod. The evidence centers on PW4, the detecting officer, who seized 43 bottles of King George Brandy from the accused’s residence after an information lead; two samples were sealed and sent for chemical analysis revealing ethyl alcohol (~35% by volume) in each bottle. Prosecution relied on PW4’s investigation and the signature admissions of two independent witnesses (PW1, PW2) who, however, turned hostile during trial. Ownership and possession of the house were contested: Ext.P3 (owner shown as Thankachan Karikkakunnel) and Ext.D1 (owner shown as Thomas) conflict with the FIR’s references; the accused allegedly used an alias (K.M.Joseph) and the owner’s name did not clearly establish his possession or presence at the time of seizure. The defense argued procedural irregularities: the detecting officer also lodged the final report; improper sealing and labeling of samples; delay in producing samples before the court; and lack of conclusive proof of ownership. The High Court engages a series of statutory and case-law touchstones (Naushad, Kader, Ravi, Choyunni, Narayana Velichappada, Biju) to scrutinize chain of custody, procedural compliance, and witnesses’ reliability. The court ultimately allows the appeal, reverses the conviction, and cancels the bail bond, highlighting significant evidentiary and procedural defects.
This is a Regular Second Appeal (SA No. 354 of 2002) from the judgment in OS 552/1981 (Additional Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram) and AS 17/1992 (District Court, Thiruvananthapuram). The plaintiffs (respondents), Rohini Vasandhathi, Ragini, Jayakumari and Vinodhini, claim exclusive title to the plaint schedule properties and challenge mortgage Ext. A5 (9-11-1996) and Ext. A1 sale deed (13-02-1970) in favour of Lakshmanan Soman, contending that the properties were purchased for the benefit of minor plaintiffs and that the transaction is void ab initio, lacking guardian’s court permission under the Guardian and Wards Act and guardianship by the mother (defendant 1) who was not a natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The trial court held the suit to be time-barred for plaintiffs 1–3 but allowed relief in favour of plaintiff 4. The lower appellate court held Ext. A1 and Ext. A5 void against the plaintiffs and granted them title and possession. The appellants (defendants 3–5) challenged this, contending that Ext. B3 (2nd defendant’s sale to them? or to the plaintiffs?) should be restored to them. The High Court, invoking Cheriathu Varkey v. Meenakshi Amma and Padinhare Veettil Madhavi v. Pachikaran Balakrishnan, applied the restitution principle in guardian/minor transactions and, holding that equity requires restoration where the guardian’s transfer was without court permission, directed restoration of Ext. B3 property to the appellants within three months, while sustaining other aspects of the lower court’s decree. The appeal is allowed in part.
WP(C).No. 18678 of 2014 (H) This writ petition challenges Ext.P13, a composite order under the KVAT Act by the Intelligence Officer imposing a penalty of Rs.11,93,354 under Section 69(1) for transport of goods without proper records. Petitioner A.N. Sankaran, a goldsmith, contends the gold was seized by police and released after conditions, arguing he is not a dealer under the KVAT Act and thus not liable for registration or returns. He asserts Ext.P8 (Section 47(2) notice) was not issued in the course of transport; the proceedings under Section 47 are therefore without jurisdiction since the seizure was by police, not a designated officer; and there was no prior notice under Section 69(4) before the penalty. Respondents claim the petitioner, by virtue of volume of gold, overdraft facilities, and lack of books, is a large-scale manufacturer/dealer who must be registered and file returns; the transport without documents warranted action under Sections 47 and 69 following a hearing. The court assesses whether Section 47 actions can be taken when seizure is not by a designated officer and whether combining 47 and 69 is valid. Relying on authorities like Sunitha Diesel, Mahaveer Fancy Stores, Whirlpool, and Prakash Roadlines, the court allows the petition and sets aside Ext.P13, while permitting fresh proceedings under Section 69.
WP(C).No. 34828 of 2010 (C) This writ petition concerns five lecturers of MES ASMABI College who were appointed as teaching staff following recommendations of the college Selection Committee (Exhibits P1–P3) and whose appointment orders (Exhibits P4–P7) were later approved by the University of Calicut (Exhibits P8–P9). The petitioners allege non-payment of salary and arrears despite university approval, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the third respondent to countersign and pass salary/arrears bills from the date of approval. Petitioners 2–5 eventually received salary and fixation under UGC guidelines, but petitioner 1 did not; the petitioner contends that no government concurrence is required for salary fixation where the university approves the appointment. The third respondent, in its counter, states that a government concurrence proposal had been forwarded and that concurrence was awaited; the counter also, in paragraph 7, contends that government concurrence is not required, implying that concurrence is an empty formality. The court relies on prior Kerala decisions—Cherian Mathew v. Principal S.B. College, Changanassery (1998) and State of Kerala v. Dr. Sina A.R. (2007)—to hold that government concurrence is not a prerequisite when university approval exists. The petition is disposed by directing the third respondent to countersign and pass the salary/arrears for the 1st petitioner from the date of approval, with payment to be made within three months of the judgment.
This appeal arises from an award under the Motor Vehicles Act in which the claimant, a carpenter aged about 31, seeks higher compensation for injuries sustained in a 30 July 2006 road accident involving an auto-rickshaw and a motorcycle. The appellant, who was riding with a pillion rider (the OP(MV) Nos. 1527/2006 and 1528/2006 in the MACT at Thalassery), suffered severe trauma to the right hand, including fracture and clawing of fingers, resulting in significant functional impairment and alleged total loss of earning capacity as a carpenter. The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,08,800, with the respondent insurer contesting the figures. The appellant contends the award undervalues both permanent and occupational disability, urging that 100% loss of earning capacity is justified, drawing on Basappa S/o Sanganabasappa Bahvikatti v. T. Ramesh S/o Tangavelu & Anr. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar to support the argument that a carpenter’s earning power can be completely lost, depending on occupation. The court re-examines the medical evidence (Exts A2–A7) and the appellant’s professional identity (Ext A7, Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board). It concludes that, for a carpenter, the disability effectively results in 100% loss of earning power, warrants elevation of several heads of damages, and results in a total enhanced compensation of Rs 11,09,800 with 9% interest, to be deposited by the insurer within three months. The judgment also discusses the proper approach to past and future losses, emphasizing occupation-based earning capacity in injury awards.
Sirajudheen P.K. @ Siraj, Abdul Rasaque, Riyas Pallikkathodi, Musthafa Parambadan, Muhammed Musthaffa, Shoukkathali @ Shoukkath, Musthaffa aged 44 years s/o Moideen, and Ashraf aged 44 years s/o Moideen (petitioners) are accused in CC No. 306/2022 arising from Crime No. 54/2021 of Mankada Police Station, Malappuram, charged under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 506(ii) and 149 for forming an unlawful assembly, wrongful confinement, and assault resulting in grievous hurt. The prosecution case alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, confined the victims, and assaulted them. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings, supported by affidavits from the victims indicating settlement and no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that a settlement exists. The High Court examined the matter in light of Supreme Court precedents in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, with reference to Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, laying down the framework for quashing non‑compoundable offences in private disputes. Finding the dispute private, the conduct of the parties, and the lack of harm to public interest, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 306/2022.
This is an OP(Crl) filed in respect of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., arising from proceedings before the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000 to each claimant from 16.04.2016, which he allegedly failed to honor, prompting respondents 1–4 to file CMP No.142/2019 seeking arrears of Rs. 1,20,000. The Family Court dismissed CMP 142/2019 after finding that payments aggregating Rs. 2,68,607 had been made (including education-related expenses). Respondents then moved Cr.MP No.220/2022 for review of the order dismissing the execution petition. The petitioner objected to review, arguing that Section 128 Cr.P.C contemplates enforcement, not review, and that the alleged payment towards education cannot be treated as maintenance; he also invoked the prohibition under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The respondents contended that maintenance under Section 125 is to prevent destitution, and payments claimed as education expenses cannot satisfy maintenance obligations for all claimants, and that the Family Court properly relied on precedents including Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) to permit review. The High Court ultimately held that the Family Court’s approach is permissible and dismissed the original petition, upholding the review-based correction of the earlier order.
This is a Criminal Appeal from the Kerala High Court, where the appellant Balan K.G. was convicted by the Sessions Court (Ad hoc 1), Kottayam, for the murder of Suresh (IPC Section 302). The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct eyewitness to the stabbing. Key testimonies came from PW2 and PW3, neighbours, who described the accused approaching the deceased and the accused being seen near the scene; PW4, the deceased’s wife, testified that the deceased told her the accused stabbed him, though she did not witness the assault. The prosecution also established the recovery of the MO1 knife from the accused on a disclosure, and recovered his clothing; the garment evidence (Exts P11–P12) and the medical evidence (Ext P3 post-mortem) indicated a lethal chest wound. The defence challenged the credibility of PW2 and argued absence of motive, delay in weapon recovery, and issues of identity, relying on case law such as Tarseem Kumar and Waikhom Yaima Singh to contend that motive or dying declarations alone could not sustain conviction. The High Court, however, held that the chain of circumstances, including dying declaration statements admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, sufficed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal. The judgment upholds the life-imprisonment sentence for murder.
The Kerala High Court, in WP(C) No. 36109 of 2023, deals with the registration of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act after an auction of a secured asset. The 3rd respondent mortgaged a 43-cent property in Ramanattukara to secure a loan from South Indian Bank; after default, the bank invoked SARFAESI, obtained possession, and the property was sold to the 5th respondent, Ext. P5 sale certificate issued. When the auction purchaser sought registration, the Sub Registrar refused citing an encumbrance evidenced by Ext. P6, an attachment order in favour of the 4th respondent by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri (O.S. 263 of 2022). The petitioner contends that the attachment was created after the equitable mortgage and thus should be effaced from the encumbrance register; relying on Madhan S. v Sub Registrar Kollam and Others; Ali Asharaf M.M. v Sub Registrar; Keechery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M.; and HDFC Bank v Sub Registrar Office, the petitioner argues that post-mortgage attachments do not affect the bank's sale rights and the encumbrances can be removed. The 3rd respondent argues that the attachment remains and the Sub Registrar cannot erase entries; the Government Pleader cites Section 89(5)(b) of the Registration Act, requiring recordation. The Court finds in favour of the petition, declaring the attachments post-mortgage ineffective for registration purposes and directing effacement of Ext. P6 and mutation of Ext. P5, disposing of the petition with directions to complete transfer.
Crl.A.No.1689 of 2005 (F) This is a criminal appeal by Soman challenging his conviction for an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, arising from 25 polythene covers of arrack seized on 25 September 1999 at Aramthanam, Vamanapuram. The Excise Inspector and his party intercepted the appellant, who attempted to flee, and recovered a green bag containing 25 polythene covers each of 200 ml. One cover was opened and found to contain arrack; the rest were kept together and sealed as Ext.P1 (Seizure Mahazar). The contraband, together with the bag and records, was produced before the Magistrate and then sent to the Sessions Court. A sample for chemical analysis was requested; however, the evidence on sampling is contested: the prosecution maintains that the sample drawn for analysis was from the seized contraband, while the defense contends that no credible link is established between the bulk and the sample, no sample was described in the property list, and there is no independent proof of sampling at the court. The sample allegedly subjected to Ext.P5 chemical analysis is said to amount to 180 ml, but no witness testified to its derivation from the bulk. The trial court convicted; the High Court, however, finds fatal defects in the chain of custody and the sampling process, citing Sasidharan v. State of Kerala to emphasize the necessity of a proper sampling link. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P5, an order dated 14.11.2014 issued by the Commissioner under Section 45A(5) of the KGST Act to revise the return for the assessment year 2001-02. Petitioner M.S. Jasmin, proprietor of M/s Karothukuzhi Polymers, had previously seen the Deputy Commissioner’s order (Ext.P2) set aside and Ext.P1 penalty order restored in 2006. The prosecution of the matter began with a notice in 2013 under Ext.P5 proposing revision, following objections filed under Ext.P4. The petitioner contends that the KGST Act does not permit revision with an indefinable period for the Commissioner, and that the 2001-02 assessment was wrapped within the era of the Kerala VAT regime which commenced on 1.4.2005, creating incongruity for a KGST-based revision. They rely on State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. (SC) and Ravi Electronics v. Assistant Commissioner (Guj) to argue limitations and accrual of rights. Respondents contend Ext.P5 is valid since the old KGST Act revision power remains and there was no time bar for the Commissioner’s revision. The Kerala High Court ultimately holds that, despite the absence of a strict limitation, the 2013 revision under the old regime cannot prevail, endorses Ravi Electronics’ principle that a mere right to reopen is not an accrued right, and quashes Ext.P5, allowing the writ petition. The decision also engages transitional logic with the DVAT Act.
W.P.(C) No.29374 of 2006-V This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears W.P.(C) No.29374 of 2006 (V), a challenge by two labourers, C.A. Muralidharan and K. Kader, against an award in I.D. No.7/1998 dated 01.09.2005 of the Labour Court, Kannur. The petitioners, dismissed by the Achoor Estate management, faced charges of willful insubordination and riotous/disorderly behaviour following an incident involving an Assistant Manager, a Field Officer, and witnesses at the estate. The petition contends the disciplinary process was flawed and the evidence did not prove misconduct beyond probability; it highlights alleged inconsistencies in the management witnesses and the manner of the domestic enquiry, including the Labour Court’s preliminary order setting aside the enquiry and permitting fresh evidence. The Labour Court ultimately held the management’s case to be established, applying the standard of proof appropriate to disciplinary matters (preponderance of probabilities) and relying on Supreme Court authority distinguishing criminal proof from disciplinary proof, notably Allahabad District Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Vidya Varidh Mishra and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, to justify the outcome. The High Court concurs, finding no ground to interfere with the Labour Court’s finding, and dismisses the writ petition with no costs. The decision underscores deterrence of misconduct in industrial establishments and upholds dismissal as justified under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This High Court of Kerala (Single Judge) deals with CRL.M.C. 9388 of 2023 arising from Crime No.805/2018 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, and CC 674/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. Accused 1–7 challenge the continuance of criminal proceedings under sections 143, 148, 341, 323, and 324 r/w 149 IPC on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and that continued prosecution would be a waste of resources and cause harassment. The petitioner’s counsel emphasizes the settlement supported by an affidavit from the victim, while the State Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but expresses reservations about quashing solely on this basis. The Court surveys the law on quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC, summarizing the Supreme Court’s guidance in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions. It notes that quashing is permissible where the dispute is private, the entire dispute is resolved, and no serious public-interest objectives are affected; yet offences of a heinous or public‑interest nature, or under special statutes or involving public servants, may not be quashed merely on settlement. Applying these principles, the court holds the case to be private in nature, accepts the settlement, and quashes the proceedings against the petitioners. The criminal case is therefore disposed of in their favor.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by the accused Sarath S., challenging the prosecution in Crime No. 257/2021 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447 and 427. The victim has expressed willingness to resolve the dispute, and the parties have settled. The petitioner’s counsel relies on the principle that non-compoundable offences may be quashed under S.482 where the dispute is private and resolved, a view supported by Sajeev v. State of Kerala and further elaborated by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan and related decisions (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh). The court outlines the governing doctrine: the power under S.482 to quash should be exercised where the dispute is civil in character and the settlement would not undermine public interest for non-compoundable offences; however, serious or heinous offences, or offences under special statutes, are generally not quashed merely on accommodation between victim and offender. It is also noted that such an exercise may be permissible only after investigation and evidence collection, with scrutiny of antecedents and conduct. After reviewing the records and the victim’s affidavit, the court concludes the dispute is private in nature and that the settlement justifies quashing. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed, and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.257/2021 are quashed.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case filed in the Kerala High Court by three petitioners—Jaison Joy, Jackson Arackal Joy, and Shinoj—seeking to quash Annexure A16 FIR in Crime No. 784 of 2023 registered at Mayyil Police Station and to restrain arrests in connection with transactions of Rings Promos Private Limited. The petition challenges ongoing and potential arrests arising from multiple complaints by a group of respondents (Nos. 7–55) alleging contractual obligations. The petitioners contend that repeated arrests across several cases are unjust, and urge protection under constitutional rights and statutory safeguards. The court acknowledges that the petition raises issues balancing investigative needs with personal liberty, and cites Praveen K.P. @ Praveen Rana v. State of Kerala to support extending the benefit of Section 41A Cr.P.C. to future crimes while preserving police autonomy where warranted, subject to compliance with Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil. In light of the petitioners’ custodial status, the court adopts a measured approach: it holds that delays in recording arrests in already registered crimes infringe Article 21, and directs that such arrests be recorded within 10 days of receiving the order. For future crimes, the 41A procedure applies with necessary safeguards, and magistrates must scrutinize detention decisions with due seriousness. The order thus disposes of the Crl.M.C. with structured directions to balance liberty and enforcement.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by seven accused—Elwin, Bibin, Aloshious, Rajeev, Melvin, Sebastian and Raghil—challenging the continuation of CC 254/2019 arising from Crime No. 14/2019 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur. The charges levelled include offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution case alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, confined the victim, assaulted him with filthy language and caused violence. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been completely settled and the victims have filed affidavits indicating no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing on the basis of settlement alone but conceded that the parties have settled. The Court examined the relevant precedents, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the related discussion in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to lay down the governing principle: while S.482 powers can quash non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil/private character where the entire dispute is resolved, such power is not to be exercised for heinous or public-interest offences. Applying these principles, the court found the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and allowed the petition; the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears MACA No. 1624 of 2018, an appeal by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (the insurer) against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Perumbavur, in OP(MV) No. 1513 of 2014. Rahul S/o Ravi, the respondent/petitioner before the MACT, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained on 19.03.2014 when the motorcycle he was riding pillion on was hit by a car. The appellant insured the car. The Tribunal consolidated both petitions and awarded Rahul Rs. 2,49,519 (consisting of non-pecuniary Rs. 1,21,000 and pecuniary Rs. 1,28,519) with interest and costs, despite the insurer contesting liability on grounds that there were two pillion riders and that contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider should be considered. The insurer challenges the finding of negligence against the car driver and the quantum. The judge cites Supreme Court authority including Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2020 SC 520) to note that burden lies on the insurer to prove the accident was caused by pillion riders, but notes the respondents did not lead evidence. The court ultimately upholds the Tribunal’s assessment, relying on Ramachandrappa and New India Assurance Co. v. Kiran Singh to justify the award and dismissal of the appeal.
WP(C).No.19571 of 2010 (V) / WP(C).Nos.10213 of 2010 This decision arises from two writ petitions—W.P.(C) No.19571/2010 and W.P.(C) No.10213/2010—concerning the sale of 36.5 cents of property in Sy.No.431, Madathuvilakom Village, Trivandrum, mortgaged to the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) for a loan to a builder for the Chidiya Apartments project. The petitioners, owners of the land, challenged the sale under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karnataka SFC v. Narasimhaiah (2008) 5 SCC 176 governs coercive sales and that the process was defective, including lack of upset price in the sale notice (Ext.P5) and alleged fraud in the loan/guarantor arrangement (Ext.P3). The respondents argued that the sale was conducted under the SFC Act, that the petitioners had become co-obligants through a power of attorney, and that the 4th respondent’s auction purchase was legally permissible. During hearings the 3rd respondent proposed a “One Time Settlement” (OTS) guided by Ext.R1(b) board minutes, proposing to wipe off liabilities if settled within a specified period. The court accepted the approach, directing settlement under Ext.R1(b) terms and delaying merit adjudication on W.P.(C) No.10213/2010, which was deemed inconsequential for the time being. Ultimately, the petitions were disposed of on the stated terms.
The petitioner, Anandan P., is the complainant in S.T.638/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat, which resulted in a settlement on 12.11.2016. The Lok Adalat award required the accused to pay Rs.95,000 by 15.01.2017, with the complainant agreeing to withdraw the case upon receipt of the amount; non-compliance would allow the complainant to proceed with the case. The accused failed to pay within the time limit, yet the trial court later passed Ext.P-6 (14.11.2016) closing the case by treating the Lok Adalath award as settled. Ext.P-4 (18.04.2017) affirmed the closure. The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the award contains a clear option for the complainant to proceed if the payment is not made, and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to close unilaterally without giving the complainant a hearing or consent. The High Court held that the Lok Adalat terms gave the complainant an explicit right to proceed if the amount was not paid, rendering Ext.P-6 and Ext.P-4 illegal and ultravires, and restored the complaint to be proceeded with by the trial court within a stipulated time frame.
