Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under SARFAESI Act not entertained; proper course to address jurisdictional issues is through the District Commission.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a financial institution engaged in the business of providing housing loans to various persons. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is against the proceedings that are pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, as C.C No.750/2024, which was filed by the respondents 1 and 2, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, what is under challenge in the said complaint, is the steps the petitioner had initiated, by invoking the statutory rights available to the petitioner under the provision of the SARFAESI Act .

2. As of now, Ext.P4 interim order was passed by the District Commission, interdicting the petitioner from initiating any coercive proceedings against respondents 1 and 2, as part of recovery proceedings for realizing the loan availed by the said respondents. It is also pointed out that, the respondents 1 and 2 have already invoked their statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the proceedings initiated against them by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and thus, parallel proceedings are in progress in respect of the very same cause of action.

3. Moreover, it is also the case of the petitioner that, since the recovery measures that are interdicted by the District Commission, were being continued on the strength of the statutory powers available to the petitioner as contemplated under SARFAESI Act , the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission should not have entertained the said complaint, as it does not have jurisdiction to decide such disputes. The petitioner submits that, this contention is already raised in the reply version by the petitioner. Now Ext.P8 application has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2, alleging that the petitioner had violated Ext.P4 interim order passed and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. The said application is now pending consideration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Ext.P9 decision rendered in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Peeyar Exporters and Ors. [MANU/KE/2306/2021] to contend that, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot entertain a dispute in connection with the steps the bank has taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act .

4. I have heard Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who raised various contentions with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to entertain a complaint regarding the matters relating to the recovery proceedings initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act .

5. After carefully going through the records, I find that, this is a matter which the petitioner has to raise before the District Commission. Since the petitioner has a case that, the said Commission does not have the jurisdiction, the proper course open the petitioner is to submit an application raising it as a preliminary issue and to request the Commission to consider the question as a preliminary issue. Since the question of jurisdiction has not been decided by the District Commission so far, I am of the view that, it is not necessary to entertain this writ petition at this juncture.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, directing that, in case the petitioner is submitting an application raising the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to entertain the complaint in C.C. No.750/2024 as a preliminary issue, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the District Commission after hearing the respondents 1 and 2. Such consideration shall be made and orders shall be passed, before any further proceedings are initiated in Ex