RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ESHWARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions are filed by the Reserve Bank of India and Maratha Co-operative Bank Ltd. and it is repeatedly contended that once a prohibitory Order under Section 35a of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is passed, the Consumer Fora would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass an order directing the Bank to pay the amount. In our view, the said submission is without any substance for the reasons stated below: for this purpose, it would be necessary to reiterate that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically provides that provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Moreover, similar provision exists in section 2 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which reads as under:

(2.) APPLICATION of other laws not barred.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not, save as hereinafter expressly provided, in derogation of the [companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956], and any other law for the time being in force. In the present case, there is no law or rules or regulations which bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. Law on the subject is settled by the Apex Court. In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, ESI Corpn. , (2007) 4 SCC 579 (Para 17) the Apex Court held as under:

(3.) SECONDLY, the prohibitory order issued under Section 35a of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, inter alia, provides as under: