West Bengal

Rajarhat

MA/42/2021

Neat Developer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Manoj Ray S/o Late Benoy Bhusan Roy - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Joydeep Goswami

21 Dec 2021

ORDER

Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town )
Kreta Suraksha Bhavan,Rajarhat(New Town),2nd Floor
Premises No. 38-0775, Plot No. AA-IID-31-3, New Town,P.S.-Eco Park,Kolkata - 700161
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/42/2021
( Date of Filing : 22 Apr 2021 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/270/2020
 
1. Neat Developer
Office at Amarpally Colony, 68/105, Jessore Road, P.o- Motijheel, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
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.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr. Joydeep Goswami , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 21 Dec 2021
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

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder]
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.