State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited & ... vs Mr. Jyotirmay Das on 4 August, 2010
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/58/2010 DATE OF FILING : 12.05.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 04.08.2010 REVISIONAL APPLICANTS 1. Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited NICCO House, P.S. Hare Street Kolkata-700 001. 2. Mr. Lakshmi Narayan Kaul A Director of Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd. NICCO House, P.S. Hare Street Koklkata-700 001. OPPOSITE PARTIES Mr. Jyotirmay Das Residing at 82, Ahiritala Road Kolkata-700 005. BEFORE : MEMBER : MRS. S.MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Dhirendranath Sharma, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.K.Das, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Revisional Application has been preferred at the instance of the Ops/Revisionists against the order no. 8 dt. 18.3.10 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in case no. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. 1203/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the application filed by the Ops/Revisionists for adjournment of the proceeding pending before the Ld. District Forum till the disposal of an application pending before the Honble High Court at Calcutta. The facts behind the present Revisional Application are briefly stated as follows :-
On 18.3.10 parties were present before the Ld. District Forum and on that day the Ops came up with an application for adjournment of the matter till disposal of the matter before the Honble High Court at Calcutta. The complainant, on the other hand, had produced some documents including a document in which the Ops invited the complainant to contact one Mr. Laloo Singha. The Ops prayed for an adjournment on the ground that initially the Honble High Court, Calcutta had stayed the proceeding, which is still pending before the Honble High Court, Calcutta, inasmuch as the hearing has been concluded and judgement is reserved.
The fact remains that there was injunction order passed by the Honble High Court, Calcutta, restraining the fixed deposit holders including those specified in Schedule-A, from initiating any proceeding and/or taking any steps in respect of those proceedings. The said order was dismissed on 4.11.08 and all the interim orders were vacated. Subsequently, on 5.11.08 the dismissal order was recalled by the Honble High Court, Calcutta. According to the Ops, upon recall of such dismissal order all the interim orders were automatically restored and hence, the application for adjournment was preferred on behalf of the Ops/Revisionists. While countering such proposition it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the Ops were taking two-point stand, which is not permissible under the law. According to the complainant, on one hand the complainant was asking for adjournment till the disposal of the matter pending before the Honble High Court, Calcutta, while, on the other hand, the Ops were asking the complainant to contact one of their men for settlement of the dispute. The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the matter has observed that the Ops having not come before the Forum with clean hands were not entitled to have the matter stayed when, according to the Ld. District Forum, the Honble Supreme Court has clearly observed that every case has to be judged on the basis of its peculiar facts and accordingly rejected the prayer for adjournment of the Ops/Revisionists.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order passed by the Ld. District Forum the Ops/Revisionists have preferred the present Revisional Application.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Revisional Application is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in rejecting the prayer for adjournment prayed for on behalf of the Revisionists.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Revisionists that there are innumerable decisions of different superior courts wherein it has been clearly held that after setting aside of order of dismissal for default, all interlocutory orders made before dismissal are automatically restored. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionists has urged before us that there was practically no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to hold another view, which is contrary to the established principles, and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Revisionists and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that in this case the Ops/Revisionists are trying to stall the proceeding before the Ld. District Forum on the ground that after revival of the dismissal order all the interlocutory orders have automatically been revived and as such, it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to refuse the prayer for adjournment till the disposal of the matter before the Honble High Court, Calcutta. In this regard, we find much substance in the submission put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Complainant, according to whom, in the main proceeding the complainant has asked for balance payment from the Revisionists/Ops and nothing else and that the complainant was not a party to the proceeding pending before the Honble High Court, Calcutta. In this regard, we also find much substance in the observation put forward by the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the Ops/Revisionists did adopt two-fold standpoint, viz., on one hand the Ops were asking for adjournment till disposal of the proceeding before the Honble High Court, Calcutta, but on the other hand, the Ops were requesting for settlement, etc. and as such, the Ops having not come with clean hands they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. In this connection, Ld. District Forum has further observed that Honble High Court in recalling the dismissal order has by implication refrained from passing any order regarding the injunction order passed earlier. In this regard, we also take note of the fact that interest of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is to be protected, which is the principal object of the Consumer Protection Act, and considering the present matter in the light of above discussion we are of the opinion that there is nothing wrong or irregularly or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum, with which we do not like to interfere.
From the foregoing discussion it has become evident that there is no merit in the present Revisional Application and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Revisional Application fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Revisional Application stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned order stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER