CANARA BANK versus G S JAYARAMA

CANARA BANK versus G S JAYARAMA

The Supreme Court held that conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C are mandatory and a Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A only after it has attempted conciliation and the parties fail to reach an agreement; because the Permanent Lok Adalat in the present case did not indicate any attempt to propose terms of settlement and proceeded to decide the dispute with absent parties, its award was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Canara Bank; Respondent: G S Jayarama
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka Against Setting Aside of Permanent Lok Adalat Award
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; Division Bench judgment setting aside the Permanent Lok Adalat award upheld while clarifying legal position on adjudicatory powers and mandatory conciliation
Legal Topics
Section 22 C (pre Litigation Conciliation and Settlement), Adjudicatory Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Finality of Awards (section 22 E)
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat Alternative Dispute Resolution Conciliation Civil Procedure Section 22 C (pre Litigation Conciliation and Settlement) Adjudicatory Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat Public Utility Services +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canara Bank

Appellant

G S Jayarama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka Against Setting Aside of Permanent Lok Adalat Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C are mandatory before a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide on merits
  2. 2 Whether Permanent Lok Adalats have adjudicatory functions under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C are mandatory and a Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A only after it has attempted conciliation and the parties fail to reach an agreement; because the Permanent Lok Adalat in the present case did not indicate any attempt to propose terms of settlement and proceeded to decide the dispute with absent parties, its award was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; Division Bench judgment setting aside the Permanent Lok Adalat award upheld while clarifying legal position on adjudicatory powers and mandatory conciliation

Orders

  • Appeal disposed of
  • Award dated 19 November 2014 of the Permanent Lok Adalat set aside