Dismissed

Sunil Maharudra Todkar and Ors. v. the Board of Liquidators, and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2011WP/3632/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums to entertain recovery proceedings. The court held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy to raise jurisdictional objections before the respective District Consumer Redressal Forum or the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus the writ jurisdiction was inappropriate.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Maharudra Todkar and Ors. Vs the Board… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

wp-3632-11.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3632 of 2011.

¶7

Sunil Maharudra Todkar & ors. ...Petitioners.

¶8

Versus The Board of Liquidators Ichalkaranji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd & ors.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr Surel Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr N. J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

¶13

CORAM: D.D. SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATED:- 28^th June, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶17

In the present writ petition the petitioners are seeking

¶18

direction to Respondent no.2 to issue Circular to the District

¶19

Consumer Forums situated at Kolhapur, Sangli, Sindhudurg and

¶20

Ratnagiri not to entertain and proceed with the proceedings

¶21

2 wp-3632-11.doc

¶22

Ladda

¶23

against the petitioners pending in the respective Forums for recovery of dues/deposits.

¶24

At the out set, it is difficult for us to issue direction sought by the petitioners to the respondent No.2, particularly, because if the petitioners are of the view that the respective Consumer Forums do not have jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the proceedings pending before them. In that event, it is always open for the petitioners to raise such objection, preliminary or otherwise, before the respective Forums at the appropriate stage. It is open for the Consumer Forums to decide the same in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to make a reference to the Division Bench order passed by this Court, dated 3rd May,2011 in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2011 along with the connected matters. The relevant contention raised in the said petition by the said petitioners reads thus :-

¶25

"Secondly, it is contended that the complainants are members of the Cooperative Credit Societies and, therefore, the competent forum to entertain the complaints of members against their cooperative societies of would be the cooperative Courts under

¶26

3 wp-3632-11.doc

¶27

Ladda

¶28

section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and not the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.”

¶29

Secondly, it is contended that the complainants are

¶30

Members of the Cooperative Credit Society and therefore competent Forum to entertain the complaints of the members against their cooperative societieis would be the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and not the Forum under Consumer Protection Act. The Division Bench in para 11 of the judgment has observed thus :-

¶31

“For these reasons, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in contention Nos. 1 and 2. As far as contention No.3 is concerned, in our view, the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them either by raising such contention before the District Consumer Redressal Forum or by approaching the State Commission under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, we do not consider these to be fit cases for exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.”

¶32

Even as per the the above observations made by the Division

wp-3632-11.doc

Ladda

Bench of this Court, the present writ petition, in our view, is misconceived.

¶37

Hence, Writ petition suffers from lack of merit. Same is

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

(D.D. SINHA,J)

¶40

(A.R.JOSHI, J.)

Sunil Maharudra Todkar and Ors. v. the Board of Liquidators, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Maharudra Todkar and Ors. v. the Board of Liquidators, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Shashikant Jadhav Vs Tejaswita N Jadhav

Dr Sunita Vijay Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Narayan Chetandas Sundrani Vs Collector

Laxman Eknath Ganpate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nita Sharad Raulgaonkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akaram Joti Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.