Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Rajendra Nath Sinha
MANDIRA MOOKERJEE - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL ; Forum - Respondent
M. A. T. 3582 Of 2004
Decided On : 12/01/2004
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORUM - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 17(1-A) - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 2(O) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(G) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 11 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 53A - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - SECTION 34 - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 3 - SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 2(1) - REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 32 - REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 33 - Held, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to grant the relief of execution and registration of the conveyance in the kind of contract involved in the present case; the present proceeding is maintainable before the Consumer Forum; the reservation on the question of law expressed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain a complaint for execution of a conveyance pursuant to an agreement for purchase of a flat under the scheme formulated by the developer under agreement with the owner. The Consumer forum had impounded the agreement between the owner-promoter and the consumer on the ground that it was not properly stamped.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to grant the relief of execution and registration of the conveyance in the kind of contract involved in the present case; the present proceeding is maintainable before the Consumer Forum; the reservation on the question of law expressed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to grant the relief of execution and registration of the conveyance in the kind of contract involved in the present case? 2. Whether the present proceeding is maintainable before the Consumer Forum?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The agreement in question is not a simple agreement for sale of immovable property, but an agreement/contract for performance of various services including execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. 2. The execution and registration of the conveyance by the owner is a service to be performed by the promoter. 3. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a valid piece of legislation creating Specific Forum for specific purpose in relation to specific matters. 4. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are to be construed widely to give effect to the object and purpose of the Act. 5. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge under appeal is hereby affirmed subject to the observation made above.
( 1 ) THE controversy : Reliefs were sought by the respondent/ writ petitioner for execution of the conveyance pursuant to an agreement for purchase of a flat under the scheme formulated by the developer under agreement with the owner before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer forum had occasion to impound the agreement between the owner-promoter and the consumer on the ground that it was not properly stamped However, mr. Talukdar on behalf of the respondent points out that proper stamp-duty was paid by the consumer on the agreement between him and the owner/ promoter. But Mr. Bhattacharya on behalf of the appellant contends that this agreement was not registered though it is compulsorily registrable under section 17 sub-section (1-A) of the Registration Act incorporated through amendment by Act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24th September, 2001, since the agreement was entered into thereafter in October 2001. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, no relief can be had on the basis of such a document on two fold reasons-one that the document is impounded and the other that the document is not a registered one, even if it is stamped subsequent to the impounding of the agreement. However, Mr. Talukdar points out that he has no instruction as to whether the document was registered or not. The scope :
( 2 ) WHETHER the document is registered or not, whether any such relief can be had on merit before the Consumer Forum within the scope and ambit thereof, are points to be agitated before the Consumer Forum or the appropriate Forum, as the case may be. We keep all these points, except the point relating to jurisdiction/maintainability, open.
( 3 ) WE would like to confine ourselves only to the question raised before this Court in the writ petition following prayers formulated in the writ petition by the appellant herein, which we would prefer to quote as hereafter:-"a. Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to receive, try or determine the issue involved in D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and the said D. F. Case no. 461 of 2003 is liable to be quashed. b. Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to refrain from entertaining the application being D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and to further refrain from giving any effect or further effect to the order passed in said D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and to hold that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application being D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003. c. Writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all records relating to the present case including the record of D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 and upon perusal of records conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioner by quashing D. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 pending before the district Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas ; d. Issue declaration that District Consumer Disputes Redressal" forum has no jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the case being d. F. Case No. 461 of 2003 pending before the Forum. e. Rule in terms of prayer 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' above. "submission on behalf of the appellant:
( 4 ) THIS question has been sought to supported by Mr. Kamalesh bhattacharya on the ground that the agreement, assuming but not admitting, is enforceable, gives right to the enforcement of specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property which can only be had through the provisions contained in the Specific Relief Act, a remedy whereunder is available only before a Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum does not extend or stretch to grant of specific relief, which is the domain of the Civil Court. According to him, an agreement for sale of an immovable property does not come within the scope and ambit of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. He refers to Section 2 (i) defining 'goods' as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. According to him, the defin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
