JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 

1. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing order dated 11.07.2022, Annexure P-4, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bathinda (for short “Lok Adalat”), whereby an application filed by respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”), has been accepted.

2. A petition under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “LSA Act”) has been filed by petitioner stating he has taken a loan of Rs.6.50 lacs and deposited the original title deed of a plot. Loan amount was repayable in monthly instalments. Petitioner was made to sign on some forms and blank papers, but the terms and conditions of the loan agreement were never supplied to him. Petitioner claims to have deposited more than double the loan amount, but a huge amount is still shown to be outstanding. Upon notice, respondents No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written statement contesting the petition. They filed an application dated 25.02.2021, Annexure P-2, for dismissal of the petition in view of arbitration clause. After contest, application has been allowed by Lok Adalat vide order impugned herein.

3. By making a reference to Section 8 of Arbitration Act, counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the application has been moved after the filing of the written statement, it is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed by him upon Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Versus N. Satchidanand, (2011) 7 SCC 463 to urge that Lok Adalat is not a “court” and provisions of LSA Act will not apply.

4. Per contra, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, while supporting the impugned order, has argued that loan agreement provides for reference of a dispute to an Arbitrator, therefore, petition under section 22-C of LSA Act is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon judgments passed by this Court in M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd. Versus Arun Mittal and another, (CR-4979-2015, decided on 31.03.2016), as well as Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Versus Sarita Garg and others, (CR-694-2015, decided on 08.02.2018), to assert that the dispute is arbitrable.

5. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have examined the documents placed on the record.

6. In Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the concept of ‘Conciliation-cum-Arbitration’ before a Lok Adalat is completely different from the concept of judicial adjudication by courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. A Lok Adalat not being a ‘court’, provision in a contract relating to exclusivity of jurisdiction of courts will not apply. Apex Court has drawn a conclusion that a Lok Adalat under LSA Act cannot qualify as a ‘court’.

7. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held that an overriding effect has been given to the special/additional remedies provided under the different statutes, including LSA Act. The observations of this Court in M/s Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus Permanent Lok Adalat Chandigarh and others (CWP-26051-2021, decided on 09.04.2024) deserve to be noticed and are reproduced hereunder:-

“Even though the matter in question was in relation to the disputes under the Consumer Protection Act but the principles for determining as to whether Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall prevail upon the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can always be extended since there is no direct judgment on the issue in reference to Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and both the parties rely on judgments in the context of Consumer laws.

Needless to say that the contours of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) are much similar to the Consumer Courts in a defined field of Public Utility Services. Significantly, even though the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was notified in the year 1987 but Chapter 'VI A' thereof was