MALAY DUTTA Vs. DEBASHIS DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a developer/promoter of properties. It appears that the opposite party no.1 was desirous of purchasing a self -contained unit in a property which was being developed by the petitioner. Disputes arose between the parties and the opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata against the petitioner. The Consumer Forum passed an order dated 17th February, 2016 directing the petitioner to refund to the opposite party no.1 the amount of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest and also directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/ - and costs assessed at Rs.10,000/ -. Several orders dated 18th April, 2016, 4th May, 2016, 16th May, 2016 and 23rd May, 2016 were passed in execution of the aforesaid order dated 17th February, 2016. In fact by reason of such orders, a warrant of arrest was issued and executed against the petitioner who is presently in jail custody. A further order dated 31st May, 2016 has been passed by the Consumer Forum after the instant petition was filed, copy whereof was brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit. By the said last order, the forum has granted bail to the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.8 lakhs in cash. The petitioner challenges the said order dated 31st May, 2016 as also the orders mentioned in the present revisional application on the primary ground that the consumer forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of any subject matter covered by the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. In support of this proposition, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel draws attention of this Court to Sections 6 and 12A of the said Act, 1993 which are set out hereunder;

(2.) Learned Counsel submits that the parent order of the Consumer Forum and all subsequent orders are bad for lack of jurisdiction and as such, operation thereof should be stayed.

(3.) Learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Abason Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Sarkar, reported in 2015 (2) CHN (CAL) 82 in support of the aforesaid proposition.