Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
John Michael Cunha, J.
Deputy Commissioner Mysuru District - Appellant
Versus
Kushal Enterprises Prop K R Chidambara, Mysuru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2715 of 2020, 2868 of 2020, 2876 of 2020, 2878 of 2020, 2937 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2020
Permanent Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction and Procedure - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22C, Section 22D
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed five separate applications before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Mysuru claiming hire charges towards supply of UPS. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were bad in law, opposed to the principles of natural justice, and were violative of the Act. The respondent maintained that the impugned orders were not exparte and that the claims were not barred by time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to pass an ex-parte award and was required to give reasons in support of its decision. The impugned awards were found to be unsustainable in law and facts of the case. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to Permanent Lok Adalat for reconsideration.
Issues: 1) Whether Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to pass ex-parte award under section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987? 2) Whether Permanent Lok Adalat is required to give reasons in support of its decision or award? 3) Whether the Statute empowers Permanent Lok Adalat to award interest and costs? 4) Whether the impugned awards are sustainable in law and facts of this case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to pass an ex-parte award and was required to give reasons in support of its decision. The impugned awards were found to be unsustainable in law and facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to Permanent Lok Adalat for reconsideration. The matters were required to be reheard and disposed of expeditiously within an outer limit of two months from the date of issuance of certified copy.
JUDGMENT
John Michael Cunha, J. - These five petitions are arising out of five identical awards, dated 30.09.2019, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Mysuru. The details of the award and the respective claim made in each of the petitions are as follows:-
| W.P. No. | PLAP. No | Claim of Respondent | Award |
| 2715/2020 | 453/2019 | Rs.5,98,400/- | Rs.3,98,400/- together with interest at 15% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of submitting the bill i.e. 05.12.2013 till the date of actual payment i.e., within 60 days, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses |
| 2868/2020 | 257/2019 | Rs.7,13,600/- | Rs.3,13,600/- together with interest at 15% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of submitting the bill i.e. 26.12.2013 till the date of actual payment i.e., within 60 days, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses |
| 2876/2020 | 452/2019 | Rs.8,20,800/- | Rs.4,20,800/- together with interest at 15% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of submitting the bill i.e. 25.11.2013 till the date of actual payment i.e., within 60 days, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses |
| 2878/2020 | 450/2019 | Rs.4,50,400/- | Rs.2,50,400/- together with interest at 15% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of submitting the bill i.e. 26.11.2013 till the date of actual payment i.e., within 60 days, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses |
| 2937/2020 | 451/2019 | Rs.8,58,400/- | Rs.4,58,400/- together with interest at 15% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of submitting the bill i.e. 26.11.2013 till the date of actual payment i.e., within 60 days, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses |
2. The outline facts of the case are that the respondent herein namely, M/s.Kushal Enterprises filed five separate applications before Permanent Lok Adalat at Mysuru under section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "Act") claiming hire charges or rental charges towards supply of UPS. The claim petitions were filed on 20.04.2019. On receipt of the same, Permanent Lok Adalat at Mysuru ordered issuance of notices and fixed the date of hearing on 20.06.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that on receipt of notices/summons from Permanent Lok Adalat, petitioner No.1 entered correspondence with the Director, Directorate of Atalji Janasnehi, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru and intimated about the filing of the claim petitions by the respondent. Further, petitioner No.1 requested for release of Rs.11,24,000/- as per the reports of the various Tahsildars of Mysuru District being the actual rental charges to be paid in favour of the respondent and was eagerly waiting reply from the Director, Directorate of Atalji Janasnehi, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru, but the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded with the proceedings and on placing the petitioners absent on all dates of hearing, based on the affidavit filed by the respondent, passed the impugned orders directing the petitioners to pay the aforesaid amounts with interest and the litigation charges as mentioned in the above table.
3. The contentions of the petitioners, in all the above petitions are that:
(i) Impugned orders are bad in law and opposed to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merits of the case without conducting any conciliation proceedings. They are exparte orders. Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass exparte orders. The impugned orders are also violative of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be set-aside on that score alone.
(ii) The Permanent Lok Adalat erred in entertaining the claim petitions without considering the fact that the claims put forward by the petitioners we
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
