9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to compromise decree based on lack of notice and authorization. Analysis: The judgment deals with an application to set aside a compromise decree dated February 7, 1972, in an appeal. The petitioner alleges that the appeal was disposed of without serving any notice on him and without his authorization for his lawyer to act on his behalf. However, the High Court of Patna provided a certificate stating that notice of the appeal was given to the Advocate for the petitioner-respondent and the General Secretary of the Colliery Mazdoor Union, of which the petitioner is a member. The petitioner had engaged Mr. Mukherjee as his lawyer, as evidenced by various documents, including a Vakalatnama bearing the petitioner's thumb mark. Additionally, telegrams exchanged between the parties indicated that the petitioner was aware of the settlement proposal and had not objected to it. The petitioner's claim of lack of authorization for Mr. Mukherjee to act on his behalf was deemed unfounded. The judgment also addresses the issue of whether the compromise is binding on the petitioner. It was noted that the petitioner was not opposed to the idea of a compromise but wanted the settlement amount to be increased. The petitioner had been receiving half of his wages pursuant to a stay order in the case and did not deny receiving a cheque for the settlement amount. The petitioner's failure to file the statement of the case by the specified deadline resulted in the appeal being set down ex parte against him. Given that the compromise was not unacceptable to the petitioner and that his lawyer acted in his best interest, the court found no lack of authority in Mr. Mukherjee's actions. Consequently, the court determined that there were no merits in the application to set aside the compromise decree and dismissed the application.
|
