Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya, Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Uttiya Roy.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The primary legal issue concerns the enforcement of orders issued by Consumer Forums/Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act. It clarifies that Section 25 of the Act prescribes the specific procedure for enforcing such orders through recovery of money, whereas Section 27 addresses penal measures such as imprisonment and fines for non-compliance (!) (!) .

2. The court held that the order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against judgment-debtors was beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum. It emphasized that enforcement should be carried out under Section 25, which provides a detailed, multi-stage process for recovery, and that Section 27's penal provisions are not intended for enforcement of monetary awards (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court observed that invoking Section 27 for enforcement purposes, such as issuing arrest warrants, without exhausting the procedures under Section 25, is not permissible. The enforcement of monetary awards must follow the procedures laid out in Section 25, and Section 27 is meant to impose penalties for non-compliance, not to serve as an alternative enforcement mechanism (!) (!) (!) .

4. The issuance of arrest warrants against parties who have already appeared before the Forum is unwarranted, especially when the proceedings are ongoing and the parties have shown willingness to comply. The order directing arrest was found to be without jurisdiction and therefore set aside (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that the powers of Consumer Forums are limited to those expressly granted by the statute. They cannot extend beyond the scope of the provisions, and any action beyond those limits, such as issuing warrants of arrest without proper jurisdiction, is illegal (!) (!) .

6. The court reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy or appellate process does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction by higher courts under constitutional articles, but such remedies should be exhausted before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing them (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court clarified that enforcement actions, such as attachment or recovery proceedings, should be initiated under Section 25, and penal measures under Section 27 are not substitutes for enforcement but are additional measures for penalizing non-compliance (!) (!) (!) .

8. The final decision was to set aside the order that issued the arrest warrant, recall the warrant, and direct the Forum to expedite the hearing of the execution proceedings. The court also confirmed that no costs would be awarded (!) (!) (!) .

9. Overall, the judgment underscores that enforcement of consumer order awards must strictly adhere to the statutory procedures outlined in Section 25, and that invoking penal provisions under Section 27 for enforcement purposes is improper and beyond jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .

10. The court highlighted that the powers conferred under the Consumer Protection Act are limited to those expressly provided, and actions taken outside these provisions are liable to be declared illegal. Proper procedural compliance is essential for lawful enforcement (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively reinforce the importance of adhering to the specific enforcement procedures under the Consumer Protection Act and caution against overstepping jurisdiction by using penal provisions for enforcement purposes.