Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Uttar Haryana Biji Vitran Nigam Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Indian express Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the facts center around a billing dispute during covid-19. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel presents arguments on jurisdiction and the nature of the billing dispute. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations reinforce the need for statutory dispute mechanisms. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling on the allowance of the writ petition. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present petition is to the Award dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula on an application filed by respondent No.l under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 .
2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the respondent No.l a Print Media Company is a consumer of the petitioner-Distribution Licensee against Account No.8118740000. Due to COVID -19 pandemic in the month of March 2020 and the consequent lockdown imposed in the country, the working of the respondent No.l-consumer was greatly reduced for a couple of months to comply with the guidelines issued by the Government of India as well as the State Government. The restrictions imposed were, however, relaxed in the month
The court distinguished between billing disputes and supply of electricity issues, emphasizing the necessity of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms established by statutes.
Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes without mutual consent and must facilitate settlement instead of mimicking formal court proceedings.
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in cases where the liability has been imposed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Section 22(C) determine jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat and it adumbrate that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence, which is compo....
The court upheld the rejection of the application by the Permanent Lok Adalat based on lack of evidence and failure to establish the defect in the meter.
The Permanent Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under the Electricity Act, 2003, as the Act provides a complete mechanism for grievance redressal and bars civil cou....
The Electricity Act, 2003 is a complete code that bars the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in disputes regarding provisional assessments under Section 126.
Point of Law : Permanent Lok Adalat has, , clearly fallen into an error in adjudicating dispute instituted by the applicant on it's merits, when it could not effect the conciliation/settlement betwee....
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
