Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ajay Sinha &amp; Another

to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statue or not..." 32. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Anr. vs. Ramesh Chander Agarwal and Ors. : (2003) 6 SCC 220 , this Court held: "...The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court..." This case was cited with approval in Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi and Anr. vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors., 2007 (5) SCALE 357. 33. Therefore, it is a fundamental presumption in statutory interpretation that ordinary civil courts have jurisdiction to decide all matters of a civil nature. As a corollary, (i) provisions excluding jurisdiction of civil courts should receive strict construction. (See Bhagwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1964 SC 444 ; Raichand vs. Union of India : AIR 1964 SC 1268 ), and (ii) provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and tribunals other than civil courts (See Kasturi and Sons vs. Salivateswaran : AIR 1958 SC 507 ; Upper Doab Sugar Mills vs. Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway : AIR 1963 SC 217 ) have to be strictly construed. 34. This principle, taken from Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh, Ninth Edition, page 630, was cited with approval in Swamy Atmananda and Ors. vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Ors. : AIR 2005 SC 2392 . 35. We must also take notice of a recent decision of this Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others : JT 2008 (2) SC 83 where this Court expressed its dismay with the manner in which the Lok-Adalat matters are dealt with. Chief Justice of India speaking for the Bench, upon noticing the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, observed that whereas Lok Adalat had to arrive at a just settlement in their conciliatory role guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles, but in that case it assumed a judicial role, heard parties, ignored the absence of consensus, and increased the compensation to an extent it considered just and reasonable, by a reasoned order which is adjudicatory in nature. It arrogated to itself the appellate powers of the High Court and allowed the appeal and directed the respondents in the appeal to pay the enhanced compensation within a period fixed by it. It was held that such an order is not an Award.36. Section 22-C(1) read with Section 22-C(2), Section 22-C(8) and Section 22-E of the Act, exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts by providing that when an application is made by either party to the Permanent Lok Adalat to settle a dispute at the pre-litigation stage, the PLA shall do so, and the other party is precluded from approaching the civil court in such a case.37. Section 22-C(1) contains certain Provisos which limit the jurisdiction of the PLA. Given the principle of statutory interpretation stated earlier, these Provisos, as a corollary, must be interpreted in an expansive manner.38. What is important to note is that with respect of public utility services, the main purpose behind Section 22-C(8) seems to be that "most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled in the pre-litigation stage itself."39. Therefore, in the instant case, the terms "relating to" an "offence" appearing in Proviso 1 must be interpreted broadly, and as the determination before the Permanent Lok Adalat will involve the question as to whether or not an offence, which is non-compoundable in nature, has indeed been committed, this case falls outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.40. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 22-Cof the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasise that it must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]28. In this case, as noticed above, the genuineness of the claim itself is in dispute. Where the parties have taken extreme positions, the same prima facie may not be the subject matter of conciliation which provides for a non binding settlement.29. For the said purpose, the dispute under the criminal procedure and/or the nature thereof would also play an important role. Whereas Respondent states that the burglary has taken place, the appellant denies and disputes the same. In a criminal case, the accused shall be entitled to raise a contention that no offence has taken place. If the criminal court form an opinion that an offence had taken place, which otherwise is a non-compoundable one, the term "relating to an offence" should be given wider meaning. The first proviso appended to section 22-B of the Act may not be of much relevance.30. This aspect of the matter had not been argued before the Division Bench of the High Court. The counsel appearing were remiss in bringing the same to the notice of the Court the binding precedents, as regards the jurisdictional aspect of the Civil Court in the light of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.We must also take notice of a recent decision of this Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others : JT 2008 (2) SC 83 where this Court expressed its dismay with the manner in which the Lok-Adalat matters are dealt with. Chief Justice of India speaking for the Bench, upon noticing the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, observed that whereas Lok Adalat had to arrive at a just settlement in their conciliatory role guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles, but in that case it assumed a judicial role, heard parties, ignored the absence of consensus, and increased the compensation to an extent it considered just and reasonable, by a reasoned order which is adjudicatory in nature. It arrogated to itself the appellate powers of the High Court and allowed the appeal and directed the respondents in the appeal to pay the enhanced compensation within a period fixed by it. It was held that such an order is not an Award.36. Section 22-C(1) read with Section 22-C(2), Section 22-C(8) and Section 22-E of the Act, exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts by providing that when an application is made by either party to the Permanent Lok Adalat to settle a dispute at the pre-litigation stage, the PLA shall do so, and the other party is precluded from approaching the civil court in such a case.37. Section 22-C(1) contains certain Provisos which limit the jurisdiction of the PLA. Given the principle of statutory interpretation stated earlier, these Provisos, as a corollary, must be interpreted in an expansive manner.38. What is important to note is that with respect of public utility services, the main purpose behind Section 22-C(8) seems to be that "most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled in the pre-litigation stage itself."39. Therefore, in the instant case, the terms "relating to" an "offence" appearing in Proviso 1 must be interpreted broadly, and as the determination before the Permanent Lok Adalat will involve the question as to whether or not an offence, which is non-compoundable in nature, has indeed been committed, this case falls outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.40. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 22-Cof the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasise that it must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder.