Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 9 October, 2014

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DRAFT
  
 
 

 
 







 



 

  

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

 WEST
 BENGAL 

 

11A,   MIRZA GHALIB STREET 

 

 KOLKATA  700 087 

 


  

 

S.C. CASE NO.CC/327/2014 

 

  

 

DATE
OF FILING:10/09/14
DATE OF FINAL ORDER:09/10/14 

 


 

 

 COMPLAINANT :  Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari  

 

S/o-Balram Tiwari  

 

2nd floor,
P-304/D, CIT Road 

 

Scheme VI M, Kankurgachi 

 

Kolkata-700 054 
 

 

  

 

 OPPOSITE PARTIES :  1) IDBI Bank Ltd. 

 

Specialized
Corporate Branch 

 

Recovery
Department 

 

4th
floor, IDBI House 

 

44,
Shakespeare Sarani  

 

Kolkata-700
017 

 

  

 

2)
Authorized Officer 

 

IDBI
Bank Ltd. 

 

Specialized
Corporate Branch 

 

Recovery
Department 

 

4th
floor, IDBI House 

 

44,
Shakespeare Sarani  

 

Kolkata-700
017 

 

  

 

3)
General Manager  

 

IDBI
Bank Ltd. 

 

Specialized
Corporate Branch 

 

Recovery
Department 

 

4th
floor, IDBI House 

 

44,
Shakespeare Sarani  

 

Kolkata-700
017 

 

  

 

4)
Deputy General Manager 

 

IDBI
Bank Ltd. 

 

Specialized
Corporate Branch 

 

Recovery
Department 

 

4th
floor, IDBI House 

 

44,
Shakespeare Sarani  

 

Kolkata-700
017 

 

  

 

5)
Recovery Manager 

 

IDBI
Bank Ltd. 

 

Specialized
Corporate Branch 

 

Recovery
Department 

 

4th
floor, IDBI House 

 

44,
Shakespeare Sarani  

 

Kolkata-700
017 

 

  
 

 

BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr. Kalidas Mukherjee 

President   HONBLE MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay   FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Ld. Advocate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: O R D E R :

 
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to hearing on the point of admission.
 
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is the auction purchaser of the property as mentioned in the complaint in pursuance of the public notice for sale of residential flats under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is contended that the Complainant being the highest bidder purchased the property and deposited the earnest money, but the OPs are not supplying the copies of the documents relating to the title of the property auction purchased by the Complainant. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP 4662 of 2012 [Jaswinder Singh vs. Corporation Bank decided on 01/08/13] in support of his contention.
 
We have heard the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the papers on record. Evidently, the property was sold in public auction by the OP Bank in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Moreover, it appears from the Annexure-A, that is, the public notice for sale of residential flats wherein it was clearly mentioned that the property is being sold on as is where is, as is what is & whatever there is basis. Since the property has been sold in exercise of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and as is where is, as is what is & whatever there is basis, we are of the considered view that the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986. In this connection we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in IV (2012) CPJ 404 (NC) [Suresh Kumar vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority] wherein it has been held that when the property has been purchased in open auction, the Petitioner is not a consumer. In another decision reported in 2013 (2) CPR 168 (NC) [Standard Chartered Bank vs. Virendra Roy] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that as per section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the Consumer Fora have no power to interfere with the SARFAESI Act. In another decision reported in IV (2013) CPJ 107 (NC) [M.O.H. Leathers Ltd. vs. Indian Bank] it has been held that in case of recovery of debt the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to SARFAESI Act in summary jurisdiction. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
 

The petition of complaint is dismissed being not admitted.

Sd/- Sd/-

Sd/-

MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT