Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, President;
Mr. J.N. Prabhudessai & Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Members
UNIQUE BUILDERS & ORS.—Applicants
versus
ELVINO BERNARDO D’SOUZA—Respondent
Revision Application No. 4 of 2004—Decided on 22.6.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. G.D. Kirtani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.G. Bakhle, Advocate.
The court's discretion to pass an interim order of injunction till the disposal of the complaint did not call for interference, and the points raised by the opposite parties could be argued at the time of final argument.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Interim Order of Injunction - The court refused to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum, which dismissed the application for dismissal of the complaint and passed an interim order of injunction, as it found no illegality or irregularity in the order. The court held that the points raised by the opposite parties could be argued at the time of final argument, and the matter could be decided finally once and for all.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa, dismissing the application filed by the opposite parties and passing an interim order of injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum, as it found no illegality or irregularity in the order. The court also directed the parties to appear before the District Forum to dispose of the complaint expeditiously.
Issues: The point for consideration was whether the order passed by the District Forum calls for interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the points raised by the opposite parties could be argued at the time of final argument, and the matter could be decided finally once and for all.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the opposite parties was refused and rejected, and the same was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Mr. Justice B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, President—This revision petition is filed by the revision applicants/opposite parties against the order dated 6.1.2004 passed in Complaint No. 130/1999 by the Consunmer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa at Porverim, dismissing the application filed by the opposite parties and passing an order on the application filed by the complainant giving interim order of injunction.
2. Heard the Counsel for the revision applicants/opposite parties and the respondent complainant.
3. It is to be noted that when the matter has come to the final stage before the District Forum application was filed by the opposite parties dated 4.4.2003 for dismissal of the complaint. On the same date namely 4.4.2003 the complainant also made an application for interim order of injunction.
4. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the District Forum, North Goa calls for interference. Our finding on that point is in the negative for the following reasons. No doubt the learned Counsel for the revision applicants has strenuously argued that the order passed by the District Forum suffers from irregularity and illegality and has relied on the following rulings:
=AIR 2003 Supreme Court 624 in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, wherein it has been held that the power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by three riders. Firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court, secondly it should be brought to the notice of the Court consistently with rules of procedure enabling Court to take note of such events and affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or explaining such events; and thirdly the subsequent event must have a material bearing on right to relief of any party.
1996 Vol. 4 Supreme Court Case page 622 in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, wherein it has been held that interim orders—stay or injunction—should not be granted in a mechanical manner—it is no consideration that if aggrieved by the order the other party can apply for vacating the stay or injunction.
AIR 1968 Allahabad 22 in Anand Prakash and Another v. Asst. Registrar Co-operative Societies and Others —Arbitrator has no inherent, implied or incidental or consequential power in exercise of which he can pass order of stay or order in the nature of injunction.
AIR 1974 Delhi page 207, Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi and Others v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and Others, interim injunction pending disposal of suit—where final relief cannot be granted no interim injunction can be issued.
5. There is no dispute with respect to the principles enunciated in the above decisions.
6. The learned Counsel for the revision applicants has vehemently urged before us that in the agreement itself there is provision for terminating the agreement and that termination is to be exercised and if it is allowed the basis of the complaint falls to the ground and, therefore, the present complaint is to be dismissed. For that purpose the application was filed when the matter was at the final stage.
7. The learned Counsel for the revision applicants submited that the termination of the agreement if accepted takes away the right of the complainant and it will be a matter of civil nature with respect to the relief claimed by the complainant and the Consumer Protection Act will not be applicable. It has been urged by the Counsel for the respondent complainant that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act for termination of agreement subsequent to institution of the complaint before Forum. All these contentions can be urged at the final stage of the complaint and the same can be decided by the District Forum on merits.
8. The District Forum, after considering all the aspects has come to the conclusion that since the matter has reached its final stage of disposal where in the contentions of the opposite parties will be assessed
