This case record is taken up for consideration for the purpose of passing order in respect of the petition filed by the opposite party, bank authority stating inter alia that this case is not maintainable in the eye of law and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

The complainant has contested this matter by filing W/O stating inter alia that this case is maintainable as the opposite party bank authority has committed unfair trade practice.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the opposite party bank authority that this case is not maintainable in view of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and this complaint case has been filed after initiation of the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. It is alleged that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case and this case is not maintainable.

On the other hand the complainant side in course of argument reiterated on the point that complainant has been compelled to file this case for unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party bank authority.

On the background of the above noted position this District Commission finds that the opposite party bank authority granted house building loan in favour of the complainant but due to nonpayment of EMI the opposite party bank authority started the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 3.8.2009 but this case has been initiated by the complainant on 11.9.2020. This matter is clearly depicting that the opposite party bank authority has started the proceedings under SARFAESI Act well ahead than that of filing of this case.

In this regard the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court, Kerala (ERNAKULAM BENCH) in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. M.P. Bijayan and others which was initiated in WP (C) no. 5957 of 2011 (T), is very important and Hon’ble Kerala High Court has been pleased to observe that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complain in respect of any measures taken by a bank of a financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to give any relief whatsoever against the same.

In this connection as per Section 34 of SAEFAESI Act the Consumer Commission has no power to interferer when notice has been served under 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 District Commission has no power to interfere when notice has been issued under 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 case is not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

For that reason this complaint case no. 22 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to costs.