Karnataka High Court

M/S First Futuristic Holdings Ltd vs M/S Slv Electrical And Plumbing on 16 October, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:41176
                                                     WP No. 28645 of 2017


              HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                        BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                       WRIT PETITION. NO. 28645 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

              BETWEEN:

              1.   M/S FIRST FUTURISTIC HOLDINGS LTD
                   A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
                   THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
                   HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
                   NO.21, 4TH FLOOR, 1ST MAINROAD
                   H.G.LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR
                   ALSO AT NO.300/1B, 16TH CROSS
                   SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 80
                   AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
                   KOVILAKUNTLA BALASUBRAMANYAM.

              2.   KOVILAKUNTLA BALASUBRANYAM
                   DIRECTOR,
                   AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                   A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
                   THE COMAPNES ACT 1956
Digitally
signed by          HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NANDINI M S        NO.21, 4TH FLOOR, 1 MAIN ROAD
Location:          H.G.LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR
HIGH COURT         ALSO AT NO.300/1B, 16TH CROSS,
OF
KARNATAKA          SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 80.

              3.   KARTHIK KRISHNA RAVICHANDER
                   ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
                   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                   M/S FIRST FUTURISTIC HOLDING LTD.
                   AND OTHERS, A COMPANY INCORPORATED
                   UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
                   HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.21
                   4TH FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD
                   H G LAYOUT, GANANAGAR
                   BANGALORE.
                                -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:41176
                                      WP No. 28645 of 2017


HC-KAR




       ALSO AT NO.262, 9TH CROSS,
       3RD BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR
       BANGALORE - 32.

4.     VENKATARANGA RAMA LAKSHMI KOVILAKUNTLA
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
       M/S FIRST FUTURISTIC HOLDINGS LTD
       A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
       THE COMAPNES ACT 1956
       HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
       NO.21, 4TH FLOOR, 1 MAIN ROAD
       H.G.LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR
       BANGALORE
       ALSO AT NO.300/1B, 16TH CROSS
       SADASHIANAGAR, BANGALORE - 80
       R/AT NO.88/1A, 2ND FLOOR
       2ND STAGE, BASAVESHVARANAGAR
       BANGALORE - 79.
                                                ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SURAJ SAMPATH, ADV.)

AND:

M/S SLV ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MISS JAYANTHI D/O ETHIRAJULU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OFFICE AT NO.4, BEHIND ANNAPURESHWAR
TEMPLE, KOGILU, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE - 560 064.
                                              ...RESPONDENT

(V/O/D 24.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ON 19.4.2017 IN EX. 872/2016 AT ANNEX-J.

THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order

dated 19.04.2017 passed in Execution Case No.872/2016 by

the Court of LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-53),

Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Respondent, who is served in the matter has remained

unrepresented before this Court.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition

are, petitioners herein had issued certain cheques to the

respondent, who is a Contractor, towards the work done and it

appears that the said cheques on presentation for realization

were dishonoured by the drawee bank and therefore,

respondent had initiated criminal proceedings against the

petitioners before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

Instruments Act, 1881, in CC No.7278/2015. During the

pendency of the said case, the matter was settled by the

parties before the Lok-adalath and compounding application

was also filed before the Lok-adalath which was signed by the

parties and their learned Advocates and based on the

compounding application filed before the Lok-adalath, the

complaint was disposed off in terms of the compounding

application/joint memo and the accused were acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Since

accused had failed to honour the cheques which were issued to

the respondent under the compounding application/joint memo,

respondent had filed Execution Case No.872/2016 to enforce

the award passed in CC No.7278/2015 by the Lok-adalath and

in the said proceedings, the petitioners herein had filed IA No.1

and 2 with a prayer to dismiss the Execution Petition as not

maintainable and also requested the Executing Court to hold an

enquiry with regard to the maintainability of the Execution

Case. The said applications were opposed by the respondent by

filing objections and the Executing Court vide the order

impugned dated 19.04.2017 passed in Execution Case

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

No.872/2016 has dismissed IA No.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by

the same, petitioners are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the

grounds urged in the petition submits that only accused Nos.1

and 2 had signed the compounding application/joint memo and

accused Nos.3 and 4 were not signatories to the same.

Therefore, execution petition as against accused Nos.3 and 4 is

not maintainable. He submits that as on the date of filing of

Execution Petition, no award was passed by the Court and the

order passed by the Lok-adalath cannot be considered as an

award which can be executed by a Civil Court. He submits that

award has been passed by the Court subsequent to filing of the

Execution Case and therefore, Execution Petition is not

maintainable. In support of his arguments, he has placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another vs.

Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited

and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 24. He submits that during the

pendency of the Execution Petition, petitioners have paid

amount covered under the cheques which were issued under

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

the compounding application to the respondent, but the

Executing Court has failed to consider the same. He,

accordingly, has prayed to allow the petition.

5. Undisputed facts of the present case are, in CC

No.7278/2015 which was pending before the jurisdictional

Court of Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section

138 read with Section 141 of the N. I. Act, accused Nos.1 and 2

and the complainant, who is the respondent herein had filed an

application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of

the learned Magistrate to permit them to compound the offence

in CC No.7278/2015 having regard to the settlement arrived

between them. In paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the application filed

under Section 320 of Cr.P.C, which is signed by accused Nos.1

and 2 and the complainant in CC No.7278/2015, it is stated as

follows:-

"4. It is submitted that, on the advise of their well wishers and friends in order to live in peace and harmony by filing this settlement application, the Complainant and Accused, as per board Resolution of the Accused, passed in accordance with Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have agreed to settle all their disputes.


                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:41176



HC-KAR



         SL.NO.   AMOUNT          DATE                CHEQUE NO
                  (INR)
         1        2,00,000/-      25 Aug 2015         193117
         2        3,00,000/-      16 Sep 2015         193122
         3        3,00,000/-      16 Oct 2015         193118
         4        4,00,000/-      16 Nov 2015         193119
         5        4,00,000/-      16 Dec 2015         193120
         6        4,00,000/-      16 Jan 2016         193121


             5.    The    Complainant     has    acknowledged        the

receipt of above-mentioned cheques drawn on Indian Bank, Sadashivnagar Branch, Bangalore. The Parties agree that they will promptly perform their obligations as per the above terms and conditions.

6. If the Accused fails to honor any of installment payments as per the agreed terms of compromise, then the Accused shall liable to pay 18% per annum for the defaulted payment, the complainant is at liberty to execute this compromise. If the Accused No.1 and 2 made payment on or before agreed time as mentioned above, the Complainant has agreed to return the remaining Cheques to the Accused No.1 and 2."

6. After the said application was filed, learned Magistrate

had referred the parties to Lok-adalath and on 03.09.2015,

case was taken before the Lok-adalath in the presence of

conciliators. In view of the settlement arrived between the

parties, complaint was disposed off in terms of the settlement

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

and the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Since accused had failed to honour

the cheques in question, which were issued to the complainant

in terms of the settlement as found in the compounding

application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the complainant

had filed Execution Case No.872/2016 before the Court of LII

Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

7. Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority

(Lok Adalats) Regulations 2009, reads as follows:-

"17. Award. - (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistancefrom Lok Adalat.

(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation-20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.

(3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted.

(4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.

(5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures:

(a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and

(b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence.

(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.

(7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent.

(8) The original award shall form part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation matter, the original award may be kept with the Legal Services Authority or committee, concerned) and a copy of the award shall be given to each of the parties duly certifying them to be true by the officer designated by the Member-Secretary or Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or, as the case may be, the Chairman of Taluk Legal Services Committees free of cost and the official seal of the Authority concerned or Committee shall be affixed on all awards."

8. In the case on hand, accused Nos.1 and 2, who had

entered into settlement with the complainant had appeared

before the Lok-adalat and affixed their signatures not only in

the compounding application/joint memo but also in the order

sheet of the Lok-adalat and members of the Lok-adalat have

also counter signed the order sheet and therefore, the said

order dated 03.09.2015 has to be considered as an award

passed by the Lok-adalat.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

9. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) reads as follows:-

"21. Award of Lok Adalat.--[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub- section(1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]"

10. From a reading of Section 21 of the Act, it is very clear

that every award of the lok-adalat shall be deemed to be a

decree of Civil Court which shall be final and binding on parties

to the award and the same is executable by a competent

jurisdictional Civil Court in the manner known to law.

11. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.38 has observed as

follows:-

"38. The other four ADR processes are non-adjudicatory and the case does not go out of the stream of the court when a reference is made to such a non-adjudicatory ADR forum. The court retains its control and jurisdiction over the case, even when the matter is before the ADR

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

forum. When a matter is settled through conciliation, the settlement agreement is enforceable as if it is a decree of the court having regard to Section 74 read with Section 30 of the AC Act. Similarly, when a settlement takes place before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat award is also deemed to be a decree of the civil court and executable as such under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though the settlement agreement in a conciliation or a settlement award of a Lok Adalat may not require the seal of approval of the court for its enforcement when they are made in a direct reference by parties without the intervention of court, the position will be different if they are made on a reference by a court in a pending suit/proceedings. As the court continues to retain control and jurisdiction over the cases which it refers to conciliations, or Lok Adalats, the settlement agreement in conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court for recording it and disposal in its terms."

12. In the case on hand, after the award was passed before

the Lok-adalat, the matter was subsequently placed before the

Court which had referred the parties to the Lok-adalat and an

award has been passed on 07.09.2016 in terms of the

settlement arrived between the parties. Therefore, I do not find

any merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners

that the execution petition was not maintainable since no award

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41176

HC-KAR

as provided under the law has been passed in the present case.

Under the circumstance, the executing Court was justified in