Manipur HC Turns Widow’s Settlement With State Into Court Decree, Notes Mediation Act Section 27 Is Not Yet In Force

The State and its entities appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

During the appeal, the parties reached a mediated settlement, recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 2 November 2026.

The High Court noted that a prior mediation had also succeeded, but the matter returned to court because an authorised officer had not been present to represent the State.

For the subsequent mediation, officers signed the agreement and their written mandates were placed before the Court.

The first respondent signed for herself and her minor daughter.

Section 1(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 makes commencement dependent on Central Government notification and permits different provisions to commence on different dates.

The Court noted that only 21 of the Act’s 65 sections had been brought into force by notification dated 9 October 2023, while Sections 19(1) and 27 remained uncommenced.

Section 27 would provide for enforcement of a qualifying mediated settlement agreement in the same manner as a court judgment or decree; in its absence, the agreement was not enforceable as a decree under that provision, making a judicial order necessary to give effect to the settlement in the pending appeal.

The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Meitankeisangbam (Ongbi) Ibemcha Devi v. Meitankeisangbam Indrajit Singh & Ors., 2026:MNHC:137-DB, concerning the uncommenced provisions.

It stated as a procedural guideline that a juridical entity should send a natural person with written authority to make decisions in mediation and sign any resulting agreement.

Because Sections 19(1) and 27 had not been brought into force, the Court considered a judicial order necessary to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the mediated settlement.

It also identified the absence of an authorised State representative as the reason the earlier settlement attempt had required the matter to return to court.

On the later attempt, written mandates were available, officers had signed on behalf of the relevant State appellants, and counsel confirmed that the fourth appellant would be bound by the first appellant’s signature.

The Court accepted those representations and the respondents’ counsel’s confirmation that the first respondent had signed for herself and the minor respondent.

The Court directed the Registry to draw up a decree accordingly.

There was no order as to costs.