Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.B. Mhase, President, S.R. Khanzode and Dhanraj Khamatkar, Members
AMIR ALI THARANI - Appellant
Versus
RAJESH SUKHTNKAR AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. A/09 of 1190 and Suo Motu Revision Petition No. RP/10/35
Decided on : 27-09-2010
ORDER
S.B. Mhase, President - Heard both the parties.
This is a common judgment being delivered in Appeal No. 1190/2009 and suo motu Revision Petition No. 35/2010.
2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 22.9.2009 below Misc. Appl. No. RA/24/2007 arising out of original consumer complaint No. 206/2006 decided on 21.12.2006. By this order, application filed by the appellant seeking time for compliance of an offer which was given by the appellant to the complainant was rejected and thereafter, District Consumer Forum directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest returnable on 26.10.2009 as against the appellant. This order of issuance of a warrant is under challenge.
3. During pendency of this appeal, prima facie, the State Commission has noticed that the proceedings which are being carried out by the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban are not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and therefore, by a detailed order dated 8.3.2010 after hearing the parties, the State Commission gave directions to the Registrar to register a Suo Motu Revision Petition in view of provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly, Suo Motu Revision Petition was registered. After registration of the Suo Motu Revision Petition, both the parties requested to this Commission to place on record the issues and points of irregularities because of which cognizance has been taken, so as to facilitate both the sides' Counsel to make appropriate submissions. Therefore, by an order dated 11.3.2010 after hearing Counsel on both the sides and recording the facts on which prima facie, Suo Motu Revision Petition was registered, following points were raised for consideration:
| (1) | What is the scope of execution under Section 25 of the Act? |
| (2) | In an order wherein direction for delivery of possession is given whether the District Consumer Forum exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 25 of the Act for execution of such order? |
| (3) | Whether District Consumer Forum has committed any error or illegality in attaching the property by purportedly invoking its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act? |
| (4) | Whether in a proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, a Receiver can be appointed? |
| (5) | Whether procedure prescribed under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act can be invoked while dealing with the application under Section 25 of the Act? If yes, what is extent of it? |
| (6) | Whether proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, can be entertained by the District Consumer Forum in a composite manner or simultaneously and/or it has been entertained distinctly and from that angle scrutinize the act of the District Consumer Forum in the present proceeding or to find out whether it is a case of illegal exercise of any jurisdiction or there a failure to exercise the jurisdiction? |
| (7) | What is the procedure required to be followed to deal with the application under Section 27 and what orders can be executed under Section 27 of the Act? |
| (8) | Whether in a proceeding under Section 25 or Section 27 of the Act, intervention application is possible, maintainable and requires to be adjudicated? |
4. In addition to these points which are raised in the Suo Motu Revision Petition, in appeal, there is objection raised by the respondent that the appeal which is purportedly to be filed under Section 27-A of the Act by the appellant is not maintainable and therefore, maintainability of the appeal is also one of the questions to be considered because after presentation of the appeal, the State Commission has issued an order on 29.9.2009 by which the notice before admission is issued and the execution of t
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
