Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Rajasthan High Court perused the entire scheme under Chapter VI of the 1987 Act and stated that the Lok Adalat had no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of the PP to withdraw prosecution, it had exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was not vested in it.
Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the petition and quashed the compromise decree in the original suit filed before Principal Senior
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph* and PS Narsimha, JJ was called upon to decide whether the Award passed by a
Supreme Court: In a case where the members of the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Court had entered into the merits of
Sikkim High Court: Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ. allowed a writ petition which was filed assailing the updated Award passed by the Lok
Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., while addressing a petition made an observation with regard to matrimonial disputes that, “…in a
High Court of Judicature at Madras: The Bench of V. M. Velumani, J. recently addressed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227
Kerala High Court: Deciding upon the validity of the awards passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding an issue related to the validity of the award and jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat,