Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 26-09-2013, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/203/2008.

The dispute relates to a loan sanctioned by the Respondents in favour of the Appellants.

We heard both sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record.

The complaint case was dismissed on the ground that dispute between the parties has already been adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.  Appellants too have disclosed that multiple proceedings, viz., SA No. 381/2009, Appeal No. 124 of 2012/4, S.A. No. 14/2017, W.P. No. 23652 (W) of 2016, O.A. No. 358/2017 have already been proceeded with in connection with the loan account in question.

It is though argued by the Appellants that the facts and circumstances of the said proceedings vis-à-vis present one is totally different, insofar as all these are in some way or the other connected with the same loan account, on due consideration of the relief sought for in the complaint case under consideration, it appears to us that the same are part and parcel of the broader issue involved pertaining to the loan account in question and could be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for consideration of the same.

The position of law is clear that once proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is initiated, the Consumer Fora can no longer adjudicate such dispute.  The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd & Others v. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 311, Transcore v. Union of India & another, (2008) 1 SCC 125, United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 are worth mentioning here.

In this case, it appears that the Respondents issued notice under the 2002 Act before initiation of the complaint case and therefore, seemingly, the complaint case was rightly dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.

Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss this Appeal.  No costs.