Whether permanent lok adalat can decide disputes on merit without consent of parties?

The predominant role, to be played by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is of a conciliator and not as a adjudicator. The Permanent Lok Adalat should not wear the robe of tire Court. If the Permanent Lok Adalat will decide the disputes, on merits, perhaps the parties will not go to the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat must offer the terms of settlement to the parties, looking to their wisdom and experience, as envisaged under Sub-section (7) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and also looking to the aforesaid decisions, rendered by this Court. The Permanent Lok Adalat should remain slow in deciding the dispute, on merits, unless the parties are made aware of the fact that to the proceedings of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 are not applicable and the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is not an appellable order, as per the provisions of Section 22D of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 as also the provisions of Section 22E of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and, thereafter, if the parties are giving their consent, in writing, then only, the Permanent Lok Adalat should venture in deciding the dispute, on merits, otherwise not. Once consent is given by the parties to the dispute, in writing, the Permanent Lok Adalat would decide the dispute, on merits, like an arbitrator. The arbitrator is a Judge privately appointed by the parties and the decision, rendered by the arbitrator, is known as an "award" and only on a limited ground, it can be challenged and not by way of an appeal. Looking to the scheme of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, enacted in pursuance of the provisions of Article 39A of the Constitution of India, it appears that the Predominant role of a Permanent Lok Adalat is to arrive at a settlement between the parties. For adjudication, there are several courts and several tribunals. It has been observed by this Court in several Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Cases also that the Permanent Lok Adalats are deciding the disputes, on merits, without there being any consent. It ought to be kept in mind that separate tribunals have already been constituted by law and the members of the Permanent Lok Adalats are sometime retired judges of the district court. Their ability of the judgment to the dispute is not to be checked as a member of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Their ability to arrive at a settlement will be appreciated by the law. Even though they are retired judges, they must remain slow in deciding the disputes, on merits, because they are sitting as a member of the Permanent Lok Adalat and not as a judge in any court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Decided On: 25.02.2010

 Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Vs.

Mrs. Bandana Devi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.

Print Page

Whether permanent lok adalat can grant interim relief in pre-litigation proceeding?

 I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the material on record. As per the chronology of facts narrated hereinabove, it is evident that on the date on which the proceedings were instituted as a pre-litigation case under Section 22 of Legal Services Authority Act, i.e., on 31st August, 2015, Bank had proceeded in taking symbolic possession of the property under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. An application for taking physical possession of the property through use of force was also pending before Deputy Commissioner Bokaro under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. In that way, any court or authority was precluded from passing any order of injunction in respect of action taken by the Bank/Financial institution in pursuance of the power conferred under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The P.L.A however proceeded to not only entertain the application as a pre-litigation application but also passed an interim order upon the Bank to maintain status quo and not to take further action against the petitioner. This action of the P.L.A was wholly without jurisdiction. It was in teeth of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 2002. Proceeding in P.L.A are to be held in a spirit of conciliation and settlement. Any decision in pre-litigation case on merits under Section 22-C(8) can be passed after following the procedure prescribed under Section 22-C. The procedure has been well interpreted and laid down by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, Tata AIG v. Mrs. Bandana Devi reported in MANU/JH/0255/2010 : (2010) 3 JLJR 312 relied upon by the petitioner Bank.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 6328 of 2015

Decided On: 04.05.2016

Allahabad Bank Vs. Sunita Devi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Citation:AIR 2017 JHAR 118

Print Page