NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/712/2016

B.K. KOHLI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUSHIL KAUSHIK & MS. HIMANSHI SINGH

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 712 OF 2016
 
1. B.K. KOHLI & ANR.
FLAT NO. 5104, ATS GREENS-2, SECTOR-50,
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
307, 3RD FLOOR, NIPUN TOWERS, KARKARDOOMA COMMUNITY CENTRE,
DELHI-110092
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
NONE

Dated : 04 Apr 2019
ORDER

Proceedings against the opposite party are pending before the NCLT for recovery of debt. Section 18 of the Recovery Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 clearly bars the jurisdictions of the Courts to entertain any proceedings when the matter is pending before NCLT. The relevant provision is reproduced as under: -

18.   Bar of Jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17:

[Provided that any proceedings in relation to the recovery of debts due to any multi-State co-operative bank pending before the date of commencement of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) shall be continued and nothing contained in this section shall, after such commencement, apply to such proceedings.]”

Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, also states that this act has an over-riding effect on any other law for the time being in force. Section 34 is re-produced as under:-

34Act to have over-riding effect.- (1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being inforce or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

(2)    The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984) [the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989)].”

In view of this, the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

 
......................J
DEEPA SHARMA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
C. VISWANATH
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.