The provisions of the Companies Act relating to winding up are intended to give relief to insolvent companies and protect their assets for equitable distribution among creditors and shareholders. Allowing individual creditors to pursue claims before authorities under the Consumer Protection Act would undermine this objective and potentially lead to preferential treatment of some creditors over others.

Mr. K. John Mathew — These are petitions filed by Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. which was ordered to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act by order dated 13.10.1982. Subsequently the company is being revived as per the scheme dated 8.10.1982 approved by this Court in M.F.A. Nos. 518,519 & 520 of 1981. As per the Scheme and subsequent orders this Court directed the company to pay at first to its creditors who are subscribers of kuries conducted by the company having a sale of Rs. 10,000/- and below. Thereafter subscribers in kuries of sale value of Rs. 20,000/- and below are to be paid at next stage and so on. According to the affidavits filed is support of these petitions the company has so far paid an amount of Rs. 11,19,03,558.23p. as on 16.8.1990. For the proper implementation of the scheme this Court has appointed an additional Director is the Board of Directors of the company. All the payments are being made by crossed cheques signed by the Additional Director. Periodical statements are also filed about the programme of the implementation of the Scheme before this Court. As per the statement filed on 16.8.90 the company has paid 72025 creditors. This Court has also directed that in making payments to the subscribers who have joined kuries having sale of Rs. 10,000/- and below initially the payments are to be effected is respect of kuries having a sale of Rs. 5,000/- and below. Only thereafter the company can pay to the subscribers who have joined kuries having sale of above Rs. 5,000/- and below Rs. 10,000/- .

2. Several subscribers have moved the District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for their respective areas for recovery of the amounts due to them from the company. It is not necessary to state the details of the amounts claimed by them, since the company is challenging the jurisdiction of the District Forum to grant relief to those subscribers. These petitions are filed by the Company under Section 446(3) read with Section 396(6) of the Companies Act and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules to transfer the cases pending before the respective District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act to this Court and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

3. However, it may be mentioned that in one case covered by C.M.P. 4063 of 1990 the subscriber has forwarded a photostat copy of the order of the District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, Srikakulam dated 7.9.1990 dismissing his petition observing that the subscriber will have to wait for some more time to receive the payment as directed by this Court. The order also mentions that if the amount is not paid within six months, the subscriber can again approach the forum for relief. Since no petition is pending before the District Forum as this stage, C.M.P. 4063 of 1990 is dismissed.

4. The common question involved in these petitions is whether the authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the redressal of grievances of consumers have jurisdiction over companies which are being wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is not necessary to examine whether the subscribers to the kuries conducted by the company in liquidation will come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. For the purposes of this discussion it is assumed that they come within the definition of that word and that the dispute is a consumer dispute as defined in the said Act.

5. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is as follows:—

“3. Act not in derogation of any law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not is derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

6. The word ‘derogation’ means partial abrogation. The word ‘abrogate’ is used when a law is abolished in its entirety. In view of the specific provision under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act that the Act shall not be in derogation of the provisio