State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd. vs Ms. Alka Puri & Another on 28 March, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : RC/64/2011 DATE OF FILING : 20.06.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.03.2012 REVISIONAL PETITIONER M/S. NICCO UCO ALLIANCE CREDIT LIMITED Having its Registered Office at Nicco House 2nd Floor, 2, Hare Street, P.S. Hare Street Kolkata-700 001. Represented by its authorized signatory, Sri Prasanta Bose. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Ms. Alka Puri Daughter of Mr. Jagadish Puri 2. Mr. Jagadish Puri S/o Late Bholanath Puri Both residing at 131, C.R.Avenue, Police Station-Jorasanko Kolkata-700 073. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE PETITIONER : Ms. Mousumi Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: In person (OP No. 2) : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Revisional Application has been preferred at the instance of the Judgement Debtor against an order dt. 27.5.11 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/EX.11 of 2011 (arising out of case no. 1080/2008) wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the application dt. 21.4.11 filed by the Judgement Debtor thereby praying for adjourning the execution case till the disposal of the application filed by the Judgement Debtor before the Honble High Court, Calcutta.
The facts and circumstances out of which the present Revisional Application has ensued, may be briefly stated as follows :-
On 27.5.11 the Decree Holder was present before the Ld. District Forum whereupon the Judgement Debtor/Revisional Petitioner filed an application thereby praying for staying the execution proceeding on the ground that the application filed by the JDr before the Honble High Court, Calcutta, is still pending and that in the said matter the Honble High Court in C.O. No. 3747 of 2010 has passed a stay order.
According to the JDr, the State Commission in pursuance to the aforesaid order of stay passed by the Honble High Court has set aside the payment order passed in CDF Case No. 753 of 2009 by an order dt. 24.1.11 in F.A. No. 397 of 2010 and accordingly, prayed for an adjournment of the execution proceeding. Ld. District Forum while disposing of the application filed by the JDr has observed that the concerned complaint case has been stayed by the State Commission pending final decision of the Company Application No. 93 of 2008 by the Honble High Court and as the stay order of the Honble State Commission has not referred to any order in respect of the execution proceeding, there was no impediment to proceed with the execution case and accordingly, dismissed the application filed by the JDr/Revisional Petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such rejection order passed by the Ld. District Forum the present Revisional Application has been preferred by the JDr.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Revisional Application is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in dismissing the application dt. 21.4.11 filed by the JDr in Execution Case No. 11 of 2011.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant/DHr that the company/JDr without any rhyme and reason has withheld the maturity value of the deposits, which were invested by the DHr. According to the Complainant/OP, when the Ld. District Forum has passed an order in favour of the complainant/OP and in the absence of any stay order of the subsequent execution proceeding by a superior forum, question of staying the execution proceeding does not arise. The Ld. District Forum having rightly dismissed the application for stay made by the JDr there is practically no merit in the present Revisional Application, which should be dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so made on behalf of the OP/DHr and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that during the execution proceeding the JDr filed an application for staying the execution proceeding on the ground that in C.O. No. 3747 of 2010 the Honble High Court, Calcutta, has passed an order of stay and that the State Commission has also in pursuance to the aforesaid stay order passed by the Honble High Court has set aside the payment order in CDF Case No. 753 of 2003 by an order dt. 24.1.11 in F.A. No. 397/2010 and there is no scope to proceed with the execution case, which should be stayed. The Ld. District Forum having found no merit in the aforesaid application filed by the JDr as the binding force of the aforesaid orders relied upon by the JDr relates to only pending complaint cases and not in the execution proceeding in question, dismissed the application for stay filed by the JDr.
We have duly perused the impugned order and find much substance in the submissions so put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist, according to whom, the Respondent being a sick industry and the Company moved the Honble High Court U/S 391 and 393 of the Companies Act and that the said case being number CA/93/2008 was earlier dismissed for default, but subsequently it was restored to its original file and number and that in the said case, the Honble High Court, Calcutta, was pleased to pass an order of stay restraining the fixed deposit holders of the applicant company including those specified in Schedule-A from initiating any proceeding and/or taking any steps and/or further steps in respect of those proceedings in any manner whatsoever whether initiated by them or contemplated to be initiated by them against the said company. In this regard, we also find much substance in the submissions put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist to the effect that if a matter is restored after setting aside the order of dismissal, the earlier order of injunction would also revive automatically. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has referred to a decision reported in (2004) 6 SCC 390, which is very much relevant for the purpose of this Revisional Application.
Having regard to the papers filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist Company we are of the view that since there is a order of injunction passed by the Honble High Court, Calcutta, restraining the fixed deposit holders from initiating any proceeding against the Respondent company, in order to honour the principles of judicial etiquette and decorum the proceedings of the Execution Case No. 11/2011 pending before the Ld. District Forum shall remain stayed till the disposal of Company Application bearing number 93 of 2008 and 850/2007, which are pending before the Honble High Court, Calcutta. In the result, the Revisonal Application succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Revisional Application stands allowed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned order dt. 27.5.11 passed by the Ld. Forum below stands set aside and the Execution Case shall remain stayed as mentioned above.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT