1. The only issue raised is the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to pass Exhibit P3 award. The award passed is under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [for brevity “LSA Act”] in the presence of the parties to the anticipated lis, with their consent and on an agreement between the parties.

2. The petitioner herein had availed a loan, with security offered by way of mortgage of immovable properties, from the respondent-Bank and defaulted it. The Bank approached the Lok Adalat constituted at Ottapalam, where the transaction took place and the mortgaged properties are situated, with a petition under Section 19 of the LSA Act. The amounts due from the petitioner at that point of time was Rs.30,11,068/-. It was settled for an amount of Rs.21,00,000/-, to be paid on or before 05.11.2015. On default, it was agreed that the respondent-Bank would be entitled to recover the dues of Rs.30,11,068/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award.

3. The petitioner having not complied with the award, the respondent-Bank was before the Debts Recovery Tribunal [for brevity “DRT”], Ernakulam, which passed Exhibit P4 order, deeming the award passed by the Lok Adalat to be a decree. By Exhibit P4, the Bank was permitted to recover a sum of Rs.32,00,147/- with interest on the sum of Rs.30,11,068/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 08.08.2015. The liability of the petitioner as per the terms of the agreement, based on which the loan was availed, as on 18.09.2017 was Rs.45,95,957/-. As per the Lok Adalat award, it is Rs.37,73,321/- with future interest only on the amounts as awarded by the Lok Adalat.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a consent would not confer jurisdiction when there is none. Specific reference is made to Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [for brevity “RDDB” Act], which bars the jurisdiction of any Court or other authority from exercising any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 of the RDDB Act. Section 17 confers authority on the Tribunal constituted under the RDDB Act to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority to decide on applications from Banks and Financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such Banks or Financial Institutions, in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- as provided in Section 1(4). Section 34 of the RDDB Act provides for an over-riding effect of the provisions of the RDDB Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

5. The Lok Adalat, which passed Exhibit P3 award, was held at Ottapalam and was organized by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Ottapalam under Section 19 of the LSA Act. Under the LSA Act, specifically Section 19(5), a Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in a dispute, the subject matter of which is “falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized or any case so pending”. As per Sections 17, 18 and 34 of the RDDB Act, there is an ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, at Ottaplam, insofar as adjudicating upon the claim for recovery of money. Hence, there cannot be a consideration by the Lok Adalat of demand made by the creditor-Bank against the debtor-petitioner, is the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [(2000) 4 SCC 406] found that the prescription of an exclusive Tribunal both for adjudication and execution is a procedure clearly inconsistent with the realization of the debts in any other manner other than through the Tribunal. The same was followed in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P.Financial Corporation [(2003) 2 SCC 455]. The LSA Act has also a non-obstante clause in Section 25 similar to that available in the RDDB Act as per Section 34. The RDDB Act