| Complaint Case No. CC/270/2020 | | ( Date of Filing : 15 Oct 2020 ) |
| | | | 1. Sri Manoj Ray S/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy | | Residing at P-I8A, Motijheel. Avenue , P.o- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. | | 2. Smt. Ira Sikdar W/oLate Ranjit Sikdar | | 68/112, Jessore Road , Amarpally, P.O- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. | | 3. Sri Sunil Kumar Roy S/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy | | 68/117,jessore Road, P.O- Motijheel, P.S-Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. | | 4. Sri Tarun Kumar Ray S/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy | | 200/1, Shyamnagar Road,6th Bye Lane, P.O- Bangur Avenue, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700055. | | 5. Smt. Champa Rakshit W/o Sri Swadesh Rakshit | | 183/4, M.G Road, P.O- Joka , P.S- Tahkurpukur , Kolkata-700104, Dist- South 24 Parganas. | | 6. Smt. Jaya Sarkar W/o Sri Barendra Krishna Sarkar | | Rresiding at 68/112 Jessore Road, P.O- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum,Kolkata-700074. | | 7. Tandra Roy D/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy | | 68/117, Jessore Road, P.O- Motijheel , P.S- Dum Dum. Kolkata-700074. | | 8. Sri Barun Roy S/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy | | 156, Jessore Road, Priyadarshini Apartment,Flat No.3C, P.O- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. | | 9. Sri Sujit Mitra S/o Late Ramendra Nath Mitra | | Udayan Pally, P.S- Maheshtala , P.O- Batanagar, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700140. | | 10. Sri Amit Mitra S/o Late Ramendra Nath Mitra | | Udayan Pally, P.S- Maheshtala, P.O- Batanagar, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700140. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Neat Developer | | Office at Amarpally Colony, 68/105, Jessore Road, P.o- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074 | | 2. Sri Subrata Sarar S/o Late Manmatha Nath Sarkar | | 68/136, Jessore Road, Amarpally Colony. P.O- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, kolkata-700074. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Today is fixed for hearing on the MA 42/2021. The Ld. Advocates on both sides are present by taking steps. According to the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Ops, the present case under Section 12 of the CP Act is not maintainable as because the complainant has already initiated a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. According to the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant, the proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot create any embargo in so far as this case under 12 of the CP Act is concerned. He has next submitted that only for interim relief the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act has been filed before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Barasat and that the said application cannot be treated as a proceeding. But in our humble opinion interim relief is obtainable from this Commission also. When he has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, we are at liberty to hold a view that a proceeding under Section 9 has already been launched in Barasat Court. The cardinal principle of Law is that none should be vexed twice for the same cause. The complainant has already burdened the Ops with the case under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, he should be debarred from filing any other case from the self-same relief. The present case in our humble view, is not maintainable in law and therefore this is a fit case for passing dismissal order. Thus the MA being no. 42/2021 is considered. Hence it is ordered, that the case (CC/270/2020) be and the same is dismissed otherwise on contest. The complainant is also at liberty to get return the copy of the complaint and the documents from the appropriate authority of this Commission as the complaint is not admitted. In this respect the complainant is further directed to submit a separate application praying for return of the abovementioned documents. The appropriate authority of this Commission is hereby directed to take necessary step upon receipt of the application from the complainant so that the complainant can get return of the aforementioned without any further delay. Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR. Dictated and corrected by [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT | |
