CWP-4662-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

210

CWP-4662-2013 (O&M).

Decided on: February 16, 2017.

State Bank of India

.. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Permanent Lok Adalat and others

.. Respondent(s)

* * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

* * *

PRESENT

Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Advocate,

for respondent no.2.

Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate,

Ms.Monica Jangra, Advocate,

for respondent no.3.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has vehemently contended that order passed by

the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad, is contrary

to the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the same is

without jurisdiction.

I have carefully considered the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner in context to the definition in Section 22-A of the

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, regarding the cases in which the

1

Raj Kumar Arora

2017.02.20 17:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-4662-2013

Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) can exercise powers.

A perusal of Section 22-A (b) (iv) of the Legal Services

Authority Act, 1987, indicates that in the matters of Insurance services the

Permanent Lok Adalat, shall have jurisdiction.

It is further contended that the cognizance could not have

been taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat as only in case a compromise is

arrived at the between the parties, the dipsute can be decided by the

Permanent Lok Adalaat, accordingly. In this context, a perusal of Section

22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, indicates that where the

parties failed to reach an agreement under Section 22-C (7) of the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall have

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter on merits.

Counsel for the petitioner has also raised a contention

that State Bank of India is an independent entity and has no concern with

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited which may be a sister concern and

any liability of the SBI Insurance Company cannot be foisted on the State

Bank of India. I find no force in the said contention.

No ground is made out for interference.

The petition is dismissed.

(M.M.S. BEDI)

JUDGE

February 16, 2017.

rka

Whether speaking / reasoned

Yes / No

Whether reportable:

Yes / No

2

Raj Kumar Arora

2017.02.20 17:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document