NARENDRA MOHAN LAKHOTIA Vs. PINAKI BHUSAN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are taken up together for the purpose of disposal as the questions involved for determination in all those three revisional applications are same and similar.

(2.) The C.O. No. 1235 of 2002 was directed against the impugned order No. 14 dated 18-4-2002 (although in the Cause Title the date of the impugned order has been shown as 23-4-2002) passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as "Forum"), South 24 Parganas arising out of Execution Case No. 19 of 2001. The C.O. No. 1238 of 2002 was directed against the impugned order No. 14 dated 23-4-2002 passed by the said Forum arising out of Execution Case No. 18 of 2001. The C.O. No. 1259 of 2002 was directed against the impugned order No. 9 dated 23-4-2002 passed by the learned Forum arising out of Execution Case No. 59 of 2001.

(3.) It appears from the record that the O.P. No. 1 was a depositor with the O.P. No. 2 and it was alleged before the Forum by the O.P. No. 1 that the O.P. No. 2 was not paying the sum even after the maturity period. It is also stated that the O.P. No. 2 is a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and an official liquidator has been appointed by the Hon'ble Company Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ronojit Kumar Mitra. But the claim petition was not filed before the official liquidator. It is also alleged in the revisional application that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the O.P. No. 2 company but due to winding up order passed by the Hon'ble Company Court the petitioner has seized to be the Managing Director of the O.P. No. 2 and the entire management of the Company and its assets vested in the official liquidator. It is also alleged that no person would have the right to enforce any claim against the O.P, No. 2 except with the leave of the Company Court. But despite all this the O.P. No. 1 sought to enforce such claim against the petitioner qua managing director of the O.P. No. 2 in a proceeding to which the petitioner was not a party, The proceeding was instituted before the District Forum and the impugned order was passed by the Forum. It is also pointed in the revisional application that the Forum in total disrespect to the position of law or the process of the Hon'ble Court had observed that merely because the Hon'ble High Court passed a winding up order, the hands of the Forum had not been tied and this the learned Forum exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law by passing an order impugned threatening the present petitioner qua Managing Director to comply with the earlier order passed by the Forum.