You are on page 1of 4

Share

More

Next Blog

Create Blog

Sign In

Power of Consumer Forum in India under CPA 1986


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Followers
Join this site
with Google Friend Connect

Consumer court has power to grant Injunction


Consumer court/forum HAS power to grant Injunction Consumer court/forum HAS power to pass Interim Order

There are no members yet. Be the first!

Already a member? Sign in

Against popular belief consumer court/forum of India is very well empowered under the consumer protection act to pass injunction orders. There are many books/publications and other media sources that say the quite opposite. One such book is Consumer Protection in India by P.K.Majumdar. Mr. Majumdar has incorrectly said in his book that consumer forums cannot pass interim orders and neither they can pass injunction orders. Old cases dating back to early 90's have been quoted for justification. The fact is that the Consumer Protection Act was amended in 2002 and section 13 (3-B) was added which empowers the consumer forum to pass interim orders. And who is to say that an order cannot lead to an injunction. Infact even before the amendment there was nothing barring the consumer forum to pass such orders. It is just that high priced lawyers representing big businesses created this false notion. The Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das 1994 SCC (4) 225 is one such case that is often cited to raise questions over the jurisdiction of consumer forums in passing such orders. But even in the Morgan Stanley case, a careful reading of the judgment would reveals that, the apex court did not impose an absolute bar in passing exparte injunction orders but only laid down the conditions for passing such orders. This is explained in a article that is found at http://jklaws.in/details.aspx?id=35. But sadly the inference from this case are misrepresented to raise questions on jurisdiction of consumer forum. Well its time to say goodbye to Morgan Stanley!

Blog Archive
2011 (2) September (2) Revisional Authority - What is and how to approach... Consumer court has power to grant Injunction

In a landmark judgment on 12.08.2011 the Allahabad High court passed an order upholding an interim injunction order of the district consumer forum. In Writ C 25969 of 2011 the Hon'ble high court has upheld the injunction order of the district consumer forum that was challenged by the aggrieved party via a Writ. The details of this case is as below 1. Consumer/complainant was granted an interim injunction by Ghaziabad (U.P) district consumer forum. 2. The injunction order restrained the builder/opposite party from raising elevation of a building beyond the first floor level. 3. Builder challenged the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in passing orders of such nature via Writ in Allahabad High Court. 4. High court granted an exparte-stay to the builder. The district consumer forum interim order was stayed. 5. After hearing the consumer/respondent the High court vacated the stay. Moral of the story is consumer court has jurisdiction to pass interim orders and injunction orders. The High Court exparte-stay order, stay vacation order and final disposal of the writ petition can be seen below.

Ghaziabad Consumer Court injunction order stayed by High Court

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25969 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- District Redressal Forum And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satish Mandhyan Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J. Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. Issue notice to respondents. Steps be taken within a week. Petitioner's case in this writ petition is that complaint has been filed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 before the District Consumer Forum in which an interim injunction has been issued by the District Consumer Forum. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to issue interim injunction. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das reported in 1994 (4) SCC 225 which is to the following effect. " Acarefulreadingoftheabovedisclosesthatthereisnopower undertheActtograntanyinterimreliefof(sicor)evenanad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted. If the jurisdictionoftheForumtograntreliefisconfinedtothefour clausesmentionedunderSection14,itpassesourcomprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregardingeventhebalanceofconvenience." The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner needs scrutiny. Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. List thereafter for admission. In the meantime, the orders dated 18th January, 2011 and 13th April, 2011 shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 10.5.2011 Pratima

SHOW ME MORE LIKE GHAZIABAD CONSUMER COURT INJUNCTION Share ORDER STAYED BY HIGH COURT Embed

of

HC Stay Vacated
5
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25969 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- District Redressal Forum And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satish Mandhyan Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Diptiman Singh,M.M.Tripathi Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

Heard Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Diptiman Singh for the respondent no.2. An application for vacating the exparte interim order dated 10.5.2011, has been filed which is being pressed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2011 and 13.4.2011, passed by District Consumer Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2. By the order dated 18.1.2011 Consumer Forum passed the interim order restraining the defendants from not proceeding with the construction of Convenience Shop and Public Plaza. After the notices were issued to the defendants they have filed objections. By subsequent order dated 13.4.2011 the District Consumer Forum finding a prima facie case issued an interim injunction by allowing the application and restraining the defendants from proceeding with the constructions of Convenience Shop and Public Plaza from more than one storey. Challenging the said orders this writ petition was filed and the

Challenging the said orders this writ petition was filed and the petitioner in support of the writ petition contended that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to grant any interim order. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das 1994(4) SCC 225, wherein Apex Court after considering Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act had laid down that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief. Relying upon the said judgment the interim order was passed by this Court on

SHOW ME MORE LIKE HC STAY VACATED Share


10.5.2011, staying the orders dated 18.1.2011 and 13.4.2011.

Embed

of

Mahagun Writ Disposed Off


5
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT-CNo.-25969of2011 Petitioner :- MahagunIndiaPvt.Ltd. Respondent :- DistrictRedressalForumAndOthers Petitioner Counsel :- SatishMandhyan Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,DiptimanSingh,M.M.Tripathi,S.D.Singh

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.D. Singh appearing for the respondent.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 18.01.2011 and 13.04.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum.

On 18.01.2011, an interim order was passed by the District Consumer Forum issuing notice to the defendants of the complaint and after hearing the defendants the said interim order has been confirmed by subsequent order dated 13.04.2011. Against these two orders, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan submits that the District Consumer Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction since his jurisdiction is limited upto Rs.20 lacs and the value of the flat was more than Rs.35 lacs.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the written statement, which has been filed by the petitioner, the point of pecuniary jurisdiction had not been specifically raised, hence this question has not been considered in the order impugned. He further submits that the matter being pending before the District Consumer Forum, it is open to the petitioner to raise this issue. It is further submitted that against the orders impugned passed by the District Consumer Form, the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of above, we are of the view that appropriate course open for the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 15 of the Act or to raise a specific objection before

SHOW ME MORE LIKE MAHAGUN WRIT DISPOSED OFF Share


the

Embed

District

Consumer

Forum

regarding

of

pecuniary

Posted by Mahesh Narayanan at 10:53 AM


Recommend this on Google

No comments: Post a Comment


Enter your comment...

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Select profile...

Publish

Preview

Newer Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Home

Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.

You might also like