State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Lav Arunbhai Vaidya vs Sri Prosenjit Sarkar on 16 April, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/236/2010 (Arising out of order dated 09/03/10 in Case No.301/2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas) DATE OF FILING:05/05/10 DATE OF ORDER:16/04/13 APPELLANT : Sri Lav Arunbhai Vaidya Flat-609, Maitri Apartment 255, N.S.C. Bose Road P.S. Jadavpur Kolkata-700 047 RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Prosenjit Sarkar 2) Sri Bhaswar Sarkar Both sons of Late Sri Onkarlal Sarkar Both of 14/139, Golf Club Road P-3, Regent Park Kolkata-700 033 3) Sri Prasad Ghosh S/o-Sri Krishna Chandra Ghosh Kajal Plot No.11, Green Park P.O. Narendrapur PIN-700 103 4) M/s M.J.M. Properties Represented by Sri Manash Roychowdhury 16/1/1, Khanpur Road P.S. Jadavpur Kolkata-700 047 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee
President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANT : In person FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. R. K. Choumal Ms. D. Chakraborty Mr. Debojit Chatterjee Mr. Sanjay Ghatak Ld. Advocates : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to the miscellaneous application 144 of 2013 whereby the misc. applicant has filed this application praying for vacating the order of stay dated 03/08/12 passed by this Commission. It has been contended by the MA applicant that the order of status quo in respect of nature and character of the suit property granted by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in T.S. No.24 of 2002 does not come in the way of granting relief to the consumer as it is not an injunction against transfer of property. The MA applicant has relied on decisions as mentioned in the application. It has been submitted by the MA applicant that pendency of a civil suit and order of status quo passed therein would not be a bar to the consumer complaint.
The Learned Counsel for the OP of this miscellaneous application has submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to review it earlier order and the MA applicant ought to have moved the Honble National Commission against the order dated 03/08/12. It is contended that the MA application is not maintainable.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. By order dated 03/08/12 it was directed that the appeal shall remain stayed till the disposal of the civil proceeding pending before Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore being T.S. No.24 of 2002. The MA applicant has prayed for review of the earlier order passed by this Commission on 03/08/12 which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Honble Apex Court in (2011) 9 SCC 541 [Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.] and the decision of the Honble National Commission as reported in 2013 (1) CCC 190 (NC) [Roshanlal Saroha Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.].
In view of the aforesaid discussion we dismiss the MA-144/2013. We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT