2000 (8) TMI 979 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of prohibition would lie against the District Forum/State Commission.
2. Whether the petitioner should be denied relief on the grounds of suppression of facts and availability of alternative remedy.
3. To what relief is the petitioner entitled.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether a writ of prohibition would lie against the District Forum/State Commission.

Scope of Writ of Prohibition:
- A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary judicial writ issued to prevent an inferior tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction it does not legally possess. It is preventive rather than corrective and is issued to stop a future act, not to undo an act already performed. It does not lie for grievances that may be redressed by appeal and is granted at the discretion of the court.

Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums:
- The petitioner argued that sections 45Q and 45QA of the RBI Act, read with section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. However, the court held that the Consumer Act is a substantive law that confers the right to seek redressal for violation of substantive rights and does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums. Section 3 of the Consumer Act states that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.

Effect of CLB Order:
- The court examined the order dated 27-5-1998 passed by the CLB, Eastern Region Bench, and found that it did not comply with the principles of natural justice as it did not give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all depositors. The order was not binding on the depositors who were not given notice, and it did not take away their right to approach the Consumer Forums.

Conclusion:
- The provisions of the RBI Act and the Companies Act do not expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. The order of the CLB does not nullify the orders passed by the District Forum/State Commission. Therefore, a writ of prohibition cannot be granted.

Issue 2: Whether the petitioner should be denied relief on the grounds of suppression of facts and availability of alternative remedy.

Suppression of Facts:
- The petitioner did not inform the CLB about the cases filed in various District Forums in Andhra Pradesh and did not disclose the fact of filing an appeal before the State Commission when approaching the High Court. This suppression of facts is a valid ground for denying discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Availability of Alternative Remedy:
- The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the State Commission or by revision petition to the National Commission. The existence of an alternative remedy operates as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion:
- The petitioner is not entitled to any relief due to suppression of facts and the availability of alternative remedies.

Issue 3: To what relief is the petitioner entitled.

Moulding the Relief:
- The court has the discretion to mould the relief even if an inappropriate writ is sought. However, given the findings on the previous issues, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
- All the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000 in each case.

Summary of Findings:
1. A writ of prohibition cannot be granted unless want of jurisdiction is apparent, and it cannot be used to stop the execution of a decision.
2. The provisions of the RBI Act and the Companies Act do not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.
3. The order of the CLB does not nullify the orders passed by the District Forum/State Commission.
4. The petitioner is not entitled to relief due to suppression of facts and the availability of alternative remedies.
5. All writ petitions are dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →