AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Petition is directed against the award dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Essential Services) Bilaspur in Case No.02/2017 whereby, the application filed by the Respondent under Section 22(A) of the Legal Aid Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act of 1987’) has been allowed and the award has been passed.
At the outset, Shri Sharma submits that the Petitioners are a Company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act under Section 45 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, which is a non-banking financial institution providing financial assistance for purchase of vehicles and machineries for allied purposes. He further submits that the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat for the public utility has been well defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987 in which, neither financial institution nor services provided by the financier is mentioned nor any notification has been issued by the Central or State Government to include such service as public utility, therefore, the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction and is not sustainable. He lastly submits that the present dispute is between the Respondent and the Petitioners/Company, which is an arbitral dispute and an agreement has been executed in which, there is an arbitration clause, therefore, prays to quash the order impugned.
Shri Pali, learned Counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the legal preposition that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not having the jurisdiction to pass such an award and submits that he may be permitted to avail appropriate legal remedy available to him, against the seizure of vehicles and other grievances.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition.
Section 22B of the Act of 1987 has categorically held that purpose of Permanent Lok Adalat is only restricted to one or more public utility services and financial services and financial non-banking companies have not been included in the said list. Further, by notification of the Central Government, 2 more services have been included i.e. education or educational institutions; or housing and real estate service, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is dehors and is not sustainable.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the award impugned is hereby set aside and accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The Respondent is at liberty to raise his grievance by taking appropriate legal recourse available to him, if so advised.