Disposed¶5

M/S Sunshine Construction and Anr. v. Bhuban Mohan Guin and Anr.

Calcutta HC19 May 2025CO/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court C.O. 305 of 2023; consumer dispute; limitation as preliminary issue; maintainability; pecuniary jurisdiction; remand to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajarhat (New Town); State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission RP/114/2022 order dated 20.10.2022; District Forum orders dated 05.08.2022; M.A. 8/2020; Sunshine Construction v. Bhuban Mohan Guin; Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with remand: the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) directed to adjudicate the limitation issue (application M.A. 8/2020) as a preliminary issue, expeditiously, without this Court going into the merits. ¶5

M/S Sunshine Construction and Anr. Vs Bhuban Mohan Guin and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Consumer Forum was bound to adjudicate the limitation objection raised by the petitioners (application M.A. 8/2020) as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the complaint, the issue having been left untouched both by the District Forum (orders dated 05.08.2022) and by the State Commission in RP/114/2022.

¶1

Court's answer

Although the issue of limitation was taken by the petitioners in their application before the District Consumer Forum, there is no mention of that issue in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the matter is remanded to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) so that the issue of limitation is adjudicated by it as a preliminary issue.

¶3

Key takeaways

The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) shall decide the limitation issue raised by the petitioner in terms of its application no. M.A. 8/2020, expeditiously.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.O. 305 of 2023 (Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction — Appellate Side; Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.; decided 19.05.2025): Petitioners (opposite parties before the consumer fora) had challenged maintainability of the complaint before the District Consumer Forum on pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation (application M.A. 8/2020). Neither the District Forum's orders dated 05.08.2022 nor the State Commission's order dated 20.10.2022 in RP/114/2022 addressed the limitation objection, though the pecuniary-jurisdiction issue stood decided. Without examining merits, the Court remanded the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) to decide limitation as a preliminary issue, in terms of M.A. 8/2020, expeditiously; petition disposed of.

¶1

19.05.2025 Court No.652 Item No.14 sudipta

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

C.O. 305 of 2023

¶4

M/s. Sunshine Construction & Anr. Vs.

¶5

Sri Bhuban Mohan Guin & Anr.

Mr. Deb Kumar Sen

Mr. Amitava Das

…for the petitioners

Mr. Lutful Haque Ms. Taharima Khatun

¶10

…for the opposite party no. 1

¶11

Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20^th October, 2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. RP/114/2022. In brief the grievances of the petitioners/opposite parties is that he had filed an application before the District Consumer Forum challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and in the same he had also taken an objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. Learned counsel submits that the issue of limitation was not at all being touched by the District Consumer Forum on its orders dated 5^th August, 2022 Similarly, the State Consumer Forum also did not touch upon the issue of limitation. Learned counsel submits that the

¶12

¶13

District Consumer Forum is bound to decide the issue of limitation before proceeding with the complaint.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the opposite

¶15

parties/complainants submits that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction on which the maintainability was assailed has duly been decided.

¶16

The Court has gone through the application filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum. The application reveals that the issue of limitation was taken by the petitioners, however, there is no mention of the issue of limitation in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Thus, without going into the merits and in order to see that the issue of limitation is adjudicated by the District Consumer Forum as a preliminary issue, the matter is remanded back to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town).

¶17

Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) shall decide the issue of limitation being raised by the petitioner in terms of application being no. M.A. 8/2020 being filed by the petitioner expeditiously.

¶18

¶19

With these observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶20

All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶21

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

M/S Sunshine Construction and Anr. v. Bhuban Mohan Guin and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sunshine Construction and Anr. v. Bhuban Mohan Guin and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Sashi @ S. Sagar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Petent Radiopharmaceutical Solutions Private Linmied Vs Eko Diagnostic Private Limited

Anusua Paul Chowdhury Vs Angshu Jajodia

Mrinmoy Kundu Vs Saumyadip Ray and Another

Siddhartha Roy Vs Surojit Paul

Siddhartha Roy Vs Surojit Paul