IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi C.O. 3257 Of 2022 IA No: CAN 1 of 2023 Bapi @ Birendra Mondal Vs.

Bally Jute Mill Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited For the petitioner : Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Adv.

Mr. Soumyajyoti Sen, Adv.

Ms. Indrani Nandi, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 17.04.2025 Judgment on : 02.05.2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The instant proceeding at the behest of the petitioner/judgment debtor in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is in assailment of order No. 29 dated September 8, 2022 passed in C. C. Execution 34 of 2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly.

2. By the order under challenge, the Commission, took into account that an appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor/ petitioner against an award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly and the State Commission dismissed the appeal. It was also noted in the impugned order that despite dismissal of appeal filed by him, the judgment debtor did not take any steps towards compliance of the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly and in such conspectus, the Commission proceeded to issue Warrant of Arrest against the judgment debtor.

3. The opposite party filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) Hooghly, being CDF Case No. 52 of 2010, seeking refund of the advance money to the tune of ₹4,50,000/- together with a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- The petitioner contested the said proceeding by filing a written version. Such proceeding ended in an order No. 26 dated July 26, 2012. The District Forum granted the petition filed on behalf of the opposite party directing the petitioner to refund to the petitioner the advance amount of ₹4,50,000/- The District Forum also directed the petitioner to pay the opposite party a compensation of ₹1,00,000/-

together with a cost of ₹2,000/- As such, the petitioner was directed to pay the opposite party a total sum of ₹5,52,000/- within one month of the date of order and in default, the due amount was directed to carry interest at the rate of 9% till realization of the full amount.

4. Against such order passed in CDF Case No. 52 of 2010 passed by the District Forum, the petitioner carried an appeal to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred as State Commission) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as S.C. Case No. FA/400/2013. The said appeal was contested by the opposite party by filing written objection to the memorandum of appeal.

5. The petitioner also taken out an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Forum which was rejected by it by order No. 18 dated January 16, 2020. Being dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 27A of the Act of 1986 before the State Commission, which was registered as First Appeal No. A/114/2020. By a judgment and order passed on July 29, 2022, such appeal was dismissed by the State Commission affirming the order dated January 16, 2020 passed in connection with C.C. Ex. Case No. 34 of 2012.

6. In consideration of the of the judgment passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal, the District Forum came to hold that inspite of dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission, the judgment debtor/petitioner did not take any steps towards compliance of the award passed by it. In consideration of the aforesaid facts, the District Forum proceeded to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner with a view to compel the petitioner to comply the award passed in C.C. Ex. Case No. 34 of 2012 arising out of CDF Case No. 52 of 2010.

7. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present proceeding under Article 227 of t