Supreme Court Settles Long-Standing Dispute with ₹20 Lakh Settlement for Petitioner
The Supreme Court of India has concluded a protracted legal battle in the case of Shankar Lal Sharma vs. Rajesh Koolwal & Others, bringing a long-standing dispute to an end through a monetary settlement. The case, which had been pending for years, highlights the importance of legal aid, judicial efficiency, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shankar Lal Sharma, aged 73, had been pursuing litigation against the respondent-Company for several years. Unable to afford legal representation, he initially appeared in person before the Supreme Court, struggling to present his case. Recognizing the challenges faced by the petitioner, the Court appointed Advocate Sanchar Anand as Amicus Curiae to assist the petitioner in legal proceedings.
The petitioner alleged that he had been denied rightful financial entitlements from the respondent-Company, and sought judicial intervention. The respondent-Company, however, contested his claims, arguing that the case lacked merit.
Legal Proceedings and Judicial Intervention
The Supreme Court heard the matter multiple times and suggested that both parties explore a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. After discussions, the respondent-Company initially offered ₹10 lakh as a full and final settlement. Upon the Court’s persuasion, the amount was increased to ₹15 lakh, and eventually, the Court directed the respondent to settle the matter with a payment of ₹20 lakh to the petitioner.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The petitioner, through Amicus Curiae, argued:
- He had been pursuing his legal claims for several years, facing significant financial distress.
- Based on his entitlements, he was due nearly ₹1 crore, and the settlement amount should reflect a fair compensation.
- Given his advanced age and health issues, a swift resolution was essential.
Arguments by the Respondents
The respondent-Company countered:
- The petitioner’s claims lacked legal merit, and the Company was under no obligation to pay additional amounts.
- The settlement offer was made purely to bring closure to the case and avoid further legal expenses.
- The Company had agreed to increase its settlement offer beyond ₹10 lakh only due to the Court’s suggestion.
Supreme Court’s Judgment and Observations
The Court, while finalizing the ₹20 lakh settlement, emphasized the importance of resolving disputes amicably. It noted:
“Considering the petitioner’s age, financial condition, and long-standing litigation, it is just and appropriate to direct the respondent-Company to pay ₹20 lakh as a full and final settlement.”
1. Role of Legal Aid and Advocates
The judgment commended Amicus Curiae Sanchar Anand for his pro bono legal assistance to the petitioner. The Court observed:
“The legal profession is a service-oriented profession. Advocates must assist litigants, particularly those with limited means, ensuring access to justice.”
2. Need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The Court reiterated the importance of ADR mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation, stating:
“Lengthy litigation often drains resources and time. Courts must encourage settlements, particularly in labor and contractual disputes.”
3. Importance of Judicial Efficiency
Highlighting the necessity of judicial efficiency, the Court noted:
“The judiciary must ensure that justice is not delayed indefinitely, especially for elderly litigants facing financial hardships.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition in the following terms:
- The respondent-Company shall pay ₹20 lakh to the petitioner within three weeks.
- Payment shall be made via Demand Draft in the petitioner’s name and handed over to Amicus Curiae Sanchar Anand.
- The petitioner shall have no further claims against the respondent-Company upon receiving the settlement amount.
- The respondent-Company shall also pay ₹1 lakh as honorarium to Amicus Curiae for his legal assistance.
Conclusion
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and justice, especially for litigants with limited resources. It reinforces the need for advocates to assist indigent litigants and the importance of out-of-court settlements in reducing the burden on the judiciary.
Petitioner Name: Shankar Lal Sharma.Respondent Name: Rajesh Koolwal & Others.Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.Place Of Incident: New Delhi.Judgment Date: 29-01-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: shankar-lal-sharma-vs-rajesh-koolwal-&-oth-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-01-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in settled
See all petitions in settled
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
