SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 2230

B. N. KIRPAL, Y. K. SABHARWAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT
S. N. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Manoj Goel, Advocate

ORDER :

B.N. Kirpal, CJI.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge is to the validity of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short the 'Act') whereby a new Chapter 6(A) has been inserted relating to pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. It is quite apparent that this chapter has been enacted as being complementary to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') which is a new provision enacted and implemented with effect from 1st July, 2002.

2. We have gone through the provisions of the said Chapter which contemplate the setting up of permanent Lok Adalats for deciding disputes in which public utility services is one of the matters involved. It is quite obvious that the effort of the legislature is to decrease the work load in the Courts by resorting to alternative disputes resolution. Lok Adalat is a mode of dispute resolution which has been in vogue since over two decades. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been settled through this mechanism and is undisputedly a fast means of dispensation of justice. The litigation is brought to a quick end with no further appeals or anguish to the litigants. The constit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top