Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) any case pending before; or

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '362959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any case pending before; or </p><p style="text-align: justify;">any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '362959',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr Vs Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors - Citation 362959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '362959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51572/legal-services-authorities-act-1987-complete-act">Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> - Sections 19(5) and 20; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 32A, Rule 6',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal from Order No. 504 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Suresh Bhutada and anr. Vs. Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20(1)(ii) r/w Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reference to Lok Adalat - Parties to the dispute are sisters, brother and mother - Appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.;The present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother - in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. This view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the amendment Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty - bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the Trial Court, nonetheless this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.;Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. Reference to Order XXXIIA is made to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. - Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission to professional colleges - Technical courses - Publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges  Held, For ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. The first step in this direction  would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. Brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. It is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. This brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. This brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. There is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law.

Section 10: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre,JJ] Admission to Professional colleges - Technical courses - Approval to additional seats or to start new course - Cut off dates  Held, The settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. This rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. One of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. This can be illustrated by giving an example. College A which is running a professional course like Engineering or MBA etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. However, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the AICTE and thereafter, the process is taken up by the State and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. These seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college A; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. None had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and  may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the Court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. In that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. Besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. It is also a kind of back door entry method. Another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. It is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. This results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. 

Admission to Professional colleges: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Technical courses -  Held,  In process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) All India Technical Council for Technical Education, (ii) State of Maharashtra through Director of Technical Education and (iii) University to which such institution is affiliated The role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. Primary of the rule of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the State Government and for that matter the University is without any purpose or of no importance. The Council is the authority Constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the students laid down a by the Central body. State can  frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. While the State grants its approval and University its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist

Admission to Professional courses: [Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,A.P. Deshpande & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ] Admission schedule - Interference by Courts  Held,  All the expert bodies viz. AICTE as well as Directorate of Education in consultation with the departments of the State regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education  had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. There has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the Court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. It is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. Merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified  schedule and timely commencement of courses. -  for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. .3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Rairkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Godbole, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-08-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.</p><p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.</p><p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:</p><p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:</p><p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---</p><p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or </p><p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;</p><p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or </p><p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat </p><p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'</p><p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:</p><p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---</p><p>(i) any case pending before; or </p><p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'</p><p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. </p><p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.</p><p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.</p><p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Subhash Bansilal Maheshwari and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '362959',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/362959/pushpa-suresh-bhutada-vs-bansilal-maheshwari'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.M. Khanwilkar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. On the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the <a>Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987</a> (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalat:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19---',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court;',
	(int) 7 => '<p>for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court if prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-section (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. ....'',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Since section 20(1) makes reference to section 19(5)(i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus:',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.---(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluka Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of---',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(i) any case pending before; or ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised;...'',
	(int) 15 => '<p>4. On plain language of section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case is instituted and pending, shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contemplated that the Court has no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting the authority of the Courts to the extent it enables the Court to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that that case is an appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>5. In the present case, no doubt, the parties, for the reasons which are not disclosed before this Court, have expressed inability of an amicable settlement,---but it appears that the appellants are willing to settle the matter. To my mind, the respondents will have to be persuaded to accept the ground reality by educating them about the possible outcome of the matter that would obtain even if the matter proceeds for trial. All this can be done by the Lok Adalat, if the matter is referred to that forum.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>6. As observed earlier, the present dispute is essentially between sisters and brother and mother-in such cases the approach of the Court should be to first persuade the parties to arrive at some amicable arrangement and if it is not possible to persuade the parties to accept some arrangement only then the question of requiring the parties to undergo the rigmarole of a trial would become necessary. Those view is fortified by the mandate of Order XXXIIA of Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. Rule 1 thereof provides for different categories of disputes in which the Court is duty bound to make effort for settlement. No doubt the present appeal is directed against an interlocutory order and the substantive dispute is pending before the trial Court, none the less this Court would be entitled to refer the entire matter for settlement to the Lok Adalat. The provisions of the Act as well as Civil Procedure Code would permit such an approach. Unquestionably, the substantive dispute is one which can be ascribed to Clause (f) and in any case (g) of sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIIA.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>7. Mr. Godbole for the respondent submits that this matter would not qualify the definition of family as mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XXXIIA. To my mind, Rule 6 does not require that only when the dispute is between husband and wife that the Court should adopt an approach of conciliation between the parties, but it can also be done even in respect of disputes between brothers and sisters or as in the present case between sisters on one hand and brother and mother on the other side. It is not possible to limit the scope and purport of Order XXXIIA, for that would be a pedantic approach in the matter. In any case, it is not necessary for me to examine as to whether the present parties would qualify the definition of family provided for in Rule 6. I have only referred to Order XXXIIA to indicate that when the dispute is essentially between family members such a dispute would qualify the requirement of an appropriate case to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. Understood thus, I have no hesitation in over ruling the objection taken by the respondents for reference to be made to Lok Adalat. On the other hand, as referred to earlier, in my view, this is eminently fit case which deserves to be referred to Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, registry of this Court is directed to refer this case to Lok Adalat. Parties to be notified about the date on which the matter will be placed before the Lok Adalat and for completion of such formalities as would be required under the extant provisions.<p>',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 20
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109