Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admission of this case.

Complainant side is found ready through ld. Advocate.

It is the argument and main point of contention of the ld. Advocate of the complainant side that this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction as the complainant and op nos. 1 and 2 have been residing within the District of Hooghly and this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction as this case has been filed for compensation below 50 lakh. It is also argued that the complainant has already paid a lumsum amount.

By drawing the attention of this District Commission to the annexed documents ld. Advocate pointed out that the loan offered was in relation with a specific scheme of the op bank and which was accepted by the Op No. 1 and so there is contractual obligation in between the parties and for that reason the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is not applicable. It is prayed by the ld. Advocate of the complainant to issue notice upon opposite parties for unearthing the actual fact.

On the background of the above noted points of argument and point of contention of complainant side, this District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the Op No. 1 has already started proceedings u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prior to filing of this case and the said notice has duly been served upon the complainant, prior to the institution of this case.

Now the question is whether this complaint case is maintainable particularly when the proceedings u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2022 has already been started or not?

In this connection as per Section 34 of SARFAESI Act the Consumer Commission has no power to interferer when the notice has been issued under the SARFAESI Act. Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata has also been pleased to observe that Civil Court or any other authority cannot arrogate to itself the right to make decisions or interfere with the SARFAESI Act and as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act the Consumer Commission has no power to interfere when the notice has been issued under the SARFAESI Act. This legal principle has been reported in the 2022(2) CPR 101 (W.B.).

Thus, it is crystal clear that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

For that reason the argument and/ or point of contention highlighted by the complainant side cannot be accepted.

In the result it is accordingly,

ordered

that this complaint is found not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

For that reason this complaint case no. 163 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.