ALLAHABAD BANK vs NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP

WE intend to dispose of all the above titled Revision Petitions and First Appeals by this common order as the question involved in all these cases is similar. In the above Revision Petitions and First Appeal No. 217/93 we are concerned with the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh while in first Appeal No. 224 the order has been passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, J. & K at Jammu.

THE facts are that various persons had made deposits with M/s. Janpriya Finance and Industrial Investment (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Company) having its registered office at Calcutta and branch office at various places in India including Chandigarh and Jammu. Some of the depositors/certificate holders filed complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission at Chandigarh through National Consumer Awareness Group (Registered) Chandigarh. Before the State Commission, Jammu the complaint was filed by Janpriya Certificate Holders (Srinagar). The Company had account with the different branches of the Allhabad Bank. In these cases we are concerned with the branches of the Bank at Saharanpur, Chandigarh and Srinagar. The above State Commissions allowed those complaints filed by the Depositors/Certificate Holders and ordered the above mentioned Branches of Allahabad Bank to make the payment in terms of the order. In the meantime some proceedings were instituted in the High Court at Calcutta in relation to the Company. That Court passed an order in August, 1992 and it was inter alia ordered: "It is further ordered that no person will withdraw any money from any account of the Company with the Banks without leave of this Court and the Banks concerned are also restrained from allowing anybody to operate the accounts of the Company without leave of this Court."

A copy of that order is in the paper book of F. A. No. 224 /93. The above order was brought to the notice of the State Commission U.T. Chandigarh by the Bank and the State Commission made reference to the Special Officer appointed by the Calcutta High Court for obtaining necessary leave from that Court However, because no reply was received from the Special Officer, the State Commission Chandigarh issued notice to the Allahabad Bank for releasing payments to the Complainants.

FURTHER hearings took place before the Calcutta High Court and another ad interim order was passed on March 23,1993 ordering that in the interest of certificate holders, staff, commission agents, share holders and everybody concerned, an attempt should be made to revive the business activities of the said Company. Para Nos. 16 and 17 of that order read as follows: (16) "The members of the Committee of Management are hereby discharged. The Special Officers will continue and they will supervise the business but they will not interfere with the day-to-day running of the business. But the Board of Directors shall submit fortnightly reports of the activities after taking over the charge. Monthly statement of receipt and expenditure shall be furnished by the Respondent No. 1 to the Joint Special Officers. The Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 shall consider the claim of Mr. Prasun Ghosh in terms of the order dated January 12,1993 passed by the learned Trial Judge of this Court. (17) No immovable property or the fixed assets of the respondent No.1 shall be disposed of and/or alienated and/or encumbered without the leave of this Court. The Bank account will be operated by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.1. Only essential expenditure shall be incurred by the Company."

THE contention of the Bank who has filed these Revision Petitions and the First Appeals titled above is that in view of the orders of the Calcutta High Court it is unable to comply with the directions issued by the State Commission, UT Chandigarh and the State Commission, J&K at Jammu and the proper remedy for the Complainants is to obtain leave of the Calcutta High Court for making payment to them. We are of the opinion that the said contention has force. The Bank is unable to make payments under the orders passed by the above State Commission in view of the order of the Calcutta High Court. The Respondents herein were not able to support the orders of the above State Commissions in view of the blanket order passed by the Calcutta High Court.

ACCORDINGLY we accept the above Revision Petitions and First Appeals and set aside the impugned orders so far as they relate to the directions given to the Bank to make the payment to the Complainants-Respondents. The Complainants, if so advised, for implementation of the order passed by the State Commission in their favour can approach the Special Officer appointed by the Calcutta High Court about the amount due to them under the orders of the above State Commissions. We make no order as to costs. Mr. Y. Krishan, Member� I agree. I would, however, like to add that the State Commission? and the District Forums should have kept in suspension the enforcement of their orders in the light of the orders of the High Court of Calcutta restraining the Banks concerned from allowing anybody to operate the accounts of the company without leave of that Court. This would have avoided Banks filing Appeals & Revision Petitions in this Commission.