Allowed

Ms Ifco Tokio Generalinsurance Company Ltd. Represnted through Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2022C.M.P./408/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order accepting a petition to revoke a Lok Adalat award under Section 22(E) of the Legal Services Authority Act. Relying on settled law and Bhargavi Construction, the Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction as challenges to Lok Adalat awards are maintainable only via writ petitions under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.

Ms Ifco Tokio Generalinsurance Company Ltd. Represnted through… — Arbitration | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C. M. P. No. 408 of 2020

¶3

¶4

M/s IFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi

¶5

… …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Farha Choudhary … …. Opp. Parties -----

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, AC to Sr. SC-II

¶11

Oral Order

¶12

08 / Dated : 07.11.2022

¶13

The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gumla in Revocation Case No. 01 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the Court below has accepted the petition filed by the opposite party no. 2 for hearing and directed to issue notice to the petitioner for appearance in the said case.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-open and revoke the award passed by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 22(E) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and, therefore, the issuance of notice in this case was without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that even if it is pleaded that the order passed in the Lok Adalat has been procured by fraud, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. In this connection, reliance has been placed on (2018) 13 SCC 480 (Bhargavi Construction Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy) in which it has been held that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too on limited ground.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that it appears that no order has been passed by the Court below and, therefore, at this stage, the petition is not maintainable.

¶16

In view of the settled law on the point the impugned order is set aside. The civil misc. petition is allowed.

¶17

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

AKT

Ms Ifco Tokio Generalinsurance Company Ltd. Represnted through Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ifco Tokio Generalinsurance Company Ltd. Represnted through Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Associated Estate Enterprises through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Shiba Prasad Banerjee Vs Sunil Kumar Singh

MD Saif Raza Vs MD Ishaque

Sheo Dayal Mahto And Anr. Vs Babu Lal Mahto

Lakhipada Maji Vs Arti Mandalian

Chitranjan Mandal Vs Kumud Ranjan Samant Roy

Ms Shyam Steel Traders through Its Proprietor Mr Prabhash Kumar Agrawal Vs Marwari Panchayat through Its General Secretary