West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/95/2012

Dipak Pakhira & Rupa Pakhira - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Chowdhury

13 Sep 2013

ORDER


cause list8B,Nelie Sengupta Sarani,7th Floor,Kolkata-700087.
Complaint Case No. CC/95/2012
1. Dipak Pakhira & Rupa Pakhira2/2, Badan Roy Lane, P.S> Bantra, Dist. Howrah, PIN-711 101. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. UCO Bank 10, BTM Sarani, P.S> Burra Bazar, Kolkata-1. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B. MUKHOPADHYAY ,PRESIDENTHON'ABLE MR. A. K. CHANDA ,MEMBERHON'ABLE MRS. SANGITA PAL ,MEMBER
PRESENT :

Dated : 13 Sep 2013
JUDGEMENT

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.

 

Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, President.   
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
            With meticulous care we have studied the entire allegation of the complainant and also the verse of the written version of the Bank Authority to search out the actual consumer dispute in between the parties.  In the present complaint complainant has prayed for directing the OP Bank to withdraw the reply dated 10-02-2012 sent to Advocate Kaushik Banerjee and for removal of any estopple of all such future action from borrower and guarantor and for compensation. But on study of the prayer it is peculiar that this prayers of such a nature (a, b, c at Page 6 of the complaint) are not entertainable by this Forum because Forum cannot cancel any letter of any authority. On the ground that the present Forum has power to decide whether the service of the OP is negligent and deficient in manner or not and for that reason relief may be granted.
            In this case it is undisputed fact that complainant is a loanee member of the OP and it is undisputed fact that this present complainant is the defaulted loanee member who failed to pay the EMIs and outstanding dues against the loan account of the complainant to the OP. For which OP’s special authority under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 issued notice u/s.13(2) of the said Act for clearing dues within the period. The complainant in that proceedings entered, filed objection thereafter again filed objection when the OP informed the complainant by letter against reply by complainant’s representative dated 16-02-2012 in connection with account of M/s. Mahapravu Enterprise on 25-02-2013 and by that letter OP submitted certain facts and it was further submitted that complainant’s adopted tactics by making objection by employing different advocates in a designed manner to linger the proceeding under the Sarfaesi Act, but from the complaint it is proved that the notice u/s.13(2) Sarfaesi Act was received by the complainant. Complainant submitted that he entered into the proceedings and filed objection then it is clear that in the present complaint the complainant has tried to challenge the action taken by authority empowered under Sarfaesi Act. So, our position is very shaky because already Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transcore vs. Union of India Supra WP (C.No.5957 of 21011) Hon’ble Supreme Court already observed that the very object of Section 13 of Sarfaesi Act is recovery by non-adjudicatory process and it falls raising that Section 13(1) and 12(2) of the Act proceeds on the basis of that security interest needs to be enforced expeditiously when the intervention of the Court/Tribunal and Sarfaesi Act states that enforcement would take place by non-adjudicatory process and the act removes all fetters on the rights of the secured creditors. And the result of the above discussion is that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint in respect of any measures taken by a bank or financial institution under Sarfaesi Act. In respect of any action or any action to be taken in presence of any power conferred under said Act.
            Moreover, as per provision of Section 34 and 35 of the said Act the power of all Tribunals of Civil Court are curtailed. So, relying upon the above                          observation and also the statutory provision of Sarfaesi Act and the judgment as referred we are of opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint as the complaint is barred u/s.34 and 35 of Sarfaesi Act and Consumer Fora have no legal Authority to entertain such a complaint for which this complaint fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint but it is specifically mentioned that complainant already filed objection against the notice u/s.13 of Sarfaesi Act, so if he is aggrieved who as per provision can take such measures as creditor u/s.13(4) of Sarfaesi Act and the aggrieved complainant may also file a case before Debt Recovery Tribunal. 
            So, this complaint is in all respect not maintainable also.

[HON'ABLE MR. A. K. CHANDA] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. B. MUKHOPADHYAY] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. SANGITA PAL] MEMBER