( 1 ) IN this group of writ petitions, prudential Capital Markets Limited (PCML), Calcutta is the petitioner. In all the petitions they prayed for a Writ of prohibition, prohibiting the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereafter called the District Forum ) or the state Consumer Disputes Redressal commission (hereafter called, the State commission) from entertaining any complaint or petition from the respondent- depositor (hereafter called the depositor ) and further declare that it is only the company Law Board (CLB) which can entertain a complaint against PCML.

( 2 ) THERE are three categories of cases. The first category of cases are those where the depositor filed a consumer dispute case before the competent District Forum for refund of the deposit made by the depositor with the PCML and on the District Forum allowing the application, the petitioner herein approached the State Commission which dismissed the appeal filed and whereupon depositor approached District forum under Section 27 (1) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (hereafter called the consumer Act ) by filing penalty petition. The second category of cases are those where the depositor filed a penalty petition before the District Forum for implementation of the order in consumer dispute case and where the petitioner did not approach the State Commission which is the appellate forum. The third category of cases are those where the orders of the appellate forum are challenged by the petitioner. As the petitioner is the same and the questions of law that arise for consideration are same, it is convenient to dispose of all the Writ Petitions by a common order.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the pleadings in Writ Petition No. 7920 of 1999 may be noticed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is a Non-Banking finance Company (NBFC) under the control of Reserve Bank of India (RBI ). The business of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereafter called, the RBI Act ). In 1997 the RBI Act was amended and Sec. 45-QA in chapter III-B was introduced which applies to all the NBFCs. Section 45-QA confers powers on CLB constituted under Sec. 10-E of the Companies Act, 1956 to order repayment of the deposit when NBFC fails to repay any deposit. In the case of any default committed by NBFC in repayment of the deposit in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the depositor shall have to approach the CLB only for redressal of grievance. The CLB is competent to order repayment of the deposit the failure of which attracts imprisonment for a term upto three years and fine of not less than Rs. 50/- from the date of default till the amount is paid, under sub-section 4 (AAA) of Section 58-B of the rbi Act. In view of Section 45-Q of the RBI act/ the provisions of Chapter III-B have overriding effect and therefore the CLB alone has exclusive jurisdiction.

( 5 ) IN 1997 due to C. R. Bhansali scam there was a panic in finance market resulting in a run on NBFCs . All the investors wanted to withdraw their amounts. The petitioner faced problems to make payments to depositors at short notice, as funds were not available though they had sufficient assets to pay off all the amounts of the depositors. When the petitioner issued post-dated repayment/ interest warrants to depositors they were returned by the bankers and the State Bank of India withdrew at par facility given to the petitioner. Consequent thereto, number of criminal cases were filed against the petitioner for dishonour of cheques/ repayment warrants. In this background, several depositors filed applications before the CLB, Eastern Region Bench under section 45-QA of the RBI Act. Taking into consideration large number or applications and after hearing all the concerned, the CLB passed a comprehensive order on 27-5-1998. This order covers all the depositors of the petitioner-Company whether they had approached the CLB or not. As per the repayment sc