HARINDER PAL SINGH SANDHU Vs. LUISA CRISTINA FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.5 and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.4.

(2.) THE above Petition seeks for the relief of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Orders dated 17.10.2006, 13.08.2007, 29.10.2007 and 17.01.2008 passed by the District Forum and all proceedings initiated from the Order of attachment till the sale and handing over of the possession of the disputed portions to the Respondent no.1.

(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioner, are that in a Company Petition bearing no. 990/2002 for the winding up of Respondent no.3, the Company Court appointed a Liquidator to take over the charge of the assets and manage the affairs of the Respondent no.3 -Company. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in view of the said winding up proceedings and the appointment of the Liquidator, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to proceed or continue with the complaint filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the Respondent no.3. By Order dated 16.07.2004, the Liquidator was permitted to auction the property of the Respondent no.3 and, consequently, the offer of the Petitioner being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/ - was accepted. In the meanwhile, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, passed an Order dated 27.04.2005 in favour of the Respondent no.1 and against the Respondent no.3 -Company to deliver the possession of the flat situated in the building constructed in the suit property. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that this Order was without any jurisdiction as no permission was obtained from the Court where the winding up proceedings were pending nor was the Liquidator aware of any such proceedings. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that on 05.05.2005, the Company Court at Mumbai, appointed a Court Receiver to hand over the possession of the said property and to execute the Deed of Conveyance. As such, the possession of the said property along with the structure therein was given to the Court Receiver on 11.05.2005 and a Conveyance Deed was executed by the Liquidator on 02.06.2006. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that a warrant of attachment was issued by the District Forum on 17.10.2006 to attach the flat for enforcement of Order dated 27.04.2005. The Petitioner learnt on 11.11.2006 about the attachment of the said flat as the warrant was pasted on the wall of the building and immediately thereafter, on 15.11.2006, an application was filed objecting to the said attachment before the District Forum. Inter alia, the contention of the Petitioner was that the forum lacked jurisdiction as the said property was purchased lawfully by the Petitioner in the said winding up proceedings. By Order dated 13.08.2007, the said application filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. A Revision was preferred by the Petitioner on 12.09.2007 against the said Order which was thereafter withdrawn. In the present Petition filed by the Petitioner, a statement was made that the said revision would be withdrawn which was accordingly thereafter withdrawn. It is further their case that the possession of the said flat was taken on 06.02.2008 despite of the objections raised by the Petitioner.