Supreme Court Judgement: Settlement of Dispute after Lok Adalat Award

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court issued a judgement regarding the settlement of a dispute after an award by the Lok Adalat. The case involved the resolution of a longstanding issue between the parties, leading to a settlement agreement. Stay informed about the intricacies of the legal system. #SupremeCourt #LegalCase #Settlement #LokAdalat


  • The appellant settled the case by paying Rs.83,120 in three installments based on a proposal accepted by the competent authority and recorded in an order dated 13.02.2015.
  • The Enforcement Department of BSES found that the electricity meter in the appellant’s house was not recording correct readings during an inspection on 15.12.2014.
  • A theft assessment bill of Rs. 97,786 was sent to the appellant and the tenant, who was found consuming the electricity supplied by BSES.
  • An FIR was filed against the appellant for the same demand despite the settlement of the case and payment received.
  • The appellant filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the registration of the FIR, which was dismissed.
  • The High Court order dismissing the petition led to the filing of the present appeal in the Supreme Court by the appellant.
  • Case settled at Rs. 83,120 against full and final payment of the bill of Rs. 97,786.
  • Order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) mentions the settlement amount.
  • The settlement amount was less than the total bill amount.

Also Read: Land Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court’s Decision on Order 7 Rule 11 Application


  • Dispute in relation to recovery of outstanding amount settled amicably between the parties in Lok Adalat.
  • Issuance of FIR by BSES against the appellant deemed unjustified after the settlement of the dispute and passing of an award.
  • Award dated 27.02.2015 passed in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim.
  • No basis for filing FIR against the appellant after settlement of the dispute.
  • Appellant paid the awarded amount to BSES as per the award, which was accepted without protest.
  • Original demand of Rs.97,786 settled at Rs.83,120 in full and final satisfaction of the claim.
  • The dispute between the parties concluded with the passing of the award, except for the recovery of the awarded amount.
  • In the case of State of Punjab & Anr. vs Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660, it was noted that reliance on a document not relied upon earlier cannot be allowed at the appellate stage, as it would be unfair to the other party.
  • Similarly, in Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 480, it was held that parties cannot be allowed to introduce a completely new case or rely on documents not referred to at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
  • The filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was considered unjust and illegal.
  • It was not permissible as it went against the terms of the award and lacked a subsisting cause of action arising out of demand.
  • The action was deemed not legally sustainable.

Also Read: Supreme Court Decision on Regulation of Oxytocin Manufacturing: A Definitive Ruling


  • The petitioner has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.83,120/- in three equal installments, in full and final settlement against the impugned bill of Rs.97,786/-.
  • The first installment of Rs.83,120/- is to be deposited by the petitioner on or before 09.03.2015, the second installment on or before 30.03.2015, and the third installment on or before 30.04.2015 at Andrews Ganj office.
  • In case of default in payment of any installment, the petitioner will be liable to pay the full amount of the impugned bill immediately.
  • Upon deposit of the first two installments, the petitioner’s request for a new connection will be processed and the new connection will be released within one week from the date of depositing the second installment, subject to completing necessary formalities.
  • The settlement was reached amicably without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001244-001244 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *