The Reserve Bank of India Act will have overriding effect over the Consumer Protection Act in case of inconsistency, and depositors have the right to approach the Consumer Forums despite alternative remedies under the Reserve Bank of India Act.

.1. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 1999. Previously, the First Petitioner was the Chairman of a Multi-National Company known as “U.B. GROUP” and the other Petitioners were the Executives/Employees of the U.B. Group of Companies. In the year 1982, a Company called “Krest Development and Leasing Limited” was incorporated and registered before the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. The U.B. Group of Companies, after following the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, acquired controlling interest in Krest Development and Leasing Limited and therefore, the said Company was renamed as “Mcdowell

.Crest Finance Limited” (Fourth Respondent herein).

2. While so, according to the First Petitioner, because of his other pre-occupations in other businesses of U.B. Group and as he was also non-resident Indian, he ceased to be the Director of the said Company even as early as on 20.03.1997 following the prescribed and requisite statutory formalities as laid down under the Companies Act. Similarly, according to the other Petitioners, they had also resigned as Directors in the Fourth Respondent-Company by following the prescribed statutory formalities. It is further alleged that the fact of resignation of the Petitioners have become effective and the same was also made known to all. Subsequently, the right to control and management of this Company had accordingly vested with the group called “Rayudu Group” and the name of the Fourth Respondent-Company was changed as “M/s. Krest Finance Limited”, it is contended.

.3. While so, some Complaints were filed by the depositors before the Company Law Board alleging that the deposits received from them by the said Company were not repaid to them. According to the Petitioners, in exercise of the power under Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Company Law Board has issued certain directions in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors. While so, many other depositors, who were not parties before the Company Law Board started filing Complaints before various Consumer Redressal Forums under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming repayment of deposits with interest and damages. According to Petitioners, several orders were passed against the Petitioners and the Fourth Respondent-Company by the Consumer Forums and ail such orders were ex parte orders. Based on the said ex parte orders, now execution proceedings have been initiated and it is stated that coercive steps, like even arrest, are also likely to be resorted to by the Consumer Forums at the instance of the beneficiaries of the orders passed by the Consumer Forums. In those circumstances, the Petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition seeking the follow relief:

.“Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the provisions of Chapter III-B and Section-45-QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act read with Section 58-A of the Companies Act and the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 012. 1998 has overriding effect over all other laws including the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and consequently direct the Respondents to adhere and implement the orders passed by Company Law Board and also refrain from taking any action, either Civil or Criminal or otherwise against the Petitioners who are not in charge of the affairs and management of Fourth Respondent as found by Company Law Board.”

.4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that when there are orders passed under Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act by the Company Law Board in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors, simultaneously, there cannot be any parallel proceedings before the Consumer Forums. He would further point out that when the Company Law Board has directed the Fourth Respondent-Company to repay the depositors in installments, it is far bey