FEDERAL BANK LTD. Vs. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the Bank challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Paragraph 4 of the order reads as under : -

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner bank the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to restrain them from initiating any legal proceedings and that impugned order may make it appear that there is a restriction on the bank in initiating any steps against the petitioner by issuing even a notice. It is not in dispute that the SARFAESI proceedings can be initiated by the Bank notwithstanding any provisions contained in any other Act including Consumer Protection Act. Even according to the Forum it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to SARFAESI proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (IV) CPJ 1 (SC) 1]. The contention is that since there is an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised a question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to entertain the complaint. That apart even the impugned order is apparently without any jurisdiction. Hence availability of alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain the petition.