The General Manager vs Amit Kumar Basa
2022 Latest Caselaw 3261 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.13317 Of 2022
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        The General Manager, Axis Bank            ....             Petitioner
        Ltd.
                                                 Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate
                                    -versus-

        Amit Kumar Basa                           ....      Opposite Party

                                               Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate


                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             13.07.2022
No.
 2.      1.    Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-

bank. He submits on reliance of judgment dated 19th May, 2022 in

Civil Appeal no.3872 of 2022 (Canara Bank v. G S Jayarama) that

impugned award dated 14th February, 2022 is liable to and should be

set aside as it was made ex-parte against his client.

2. Mr. Biswal, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite

party and submits, ex-parte because inspite of notice petitioner did not

cooperate with the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in choosing not to

appear before it. He submits, appropriate direction be made for

restoration of the matter to the PLA.

// 2 //

3. In paragraph-26 of Canara Bank (supra) (Live Law print) the

Supreme Court said, inter alia, the PLA based on material before it

shall propose terms of settlement and communicate them to both

parties, regardless whether they participated in the proceedings. If the

party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree or if

the absent party does not respond in a sufficient period of time, only

then can the Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicate the dispute on its

merits under section 22-C(8) in Legal Services Act, 1987. The

Supreme Court went on to say, keeping in mind the principles

enshrined in section 22-D, the PLA shall once again notify the absent

party of its decision to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, in case it

wishes to join the proceedings at that stage.

4. Impugned award is set aside and quashed. The matter is

restored to the PLA for attempt at settlement, failing which

adjudication. The purpose of notice regarding terms of possible

settlement formulated by the PLA stands satisfied since petitioner has

impugned the award, in which the terms had been stated. Petitioner is

hereby put on notice that it may either still respond to those terms, for

settlement or join in the restored proceeding before the PLA for

adjudication of the dispute.

// 3 //

5. The dispute appears to be regarding a credit card issued by

petitioner to opposite party. Opposite party says the card was never

activated. Petitioner in the writ petition has not asserted it was. As

such there does not appear to be dispute, atleast on that the card was

not activated. This finding is prima facie and petitioner will be

entitled to adduce evidence regarding activation of the card, before

the PLA.

6. Parties or either of them will produce this order before the

PLA, for resuming the proceeding from stage of attempting settlement

between the parties and thereafter adjudication, if it fails, in light of

directions made above.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks