w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



United Bank of India, West Bengal v/s Ranjan Basu & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- G M BASU & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1998PTC088465

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- A K BASU PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC013594

Company & Directors' Information:- S K BASU & CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36900WB1937PLC009162

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED BANK LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U93090TN1937PLC003162

Company & Directors' Information:- BASU AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2001PTC111274

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

Company & Directors' Information:- RANJAN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1936PTC008688

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA BANK LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U65191KL1947PLC001273

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST INDIA COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1945PTC004516

    Revision Petition No. 297 of 2019

    Decided On, 03 March 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Sorabh Dahiya, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Gobinda Prasad Ray, Advocate, R3 to R6, None.



Judgment Text


The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2018 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for shot “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.686/2016 filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 01.06.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, Kolkata (for short “the District Forum”) in Execution Application No.71 of 2009.

2. Section 21(b) of the Act confers the jurisdiction upon the National Commission for entertaining a Revision Petition. Section 21(b) reads as under:

21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

3. The bare reading of this provision clearly shows that the Revision Petitions are maintainable against the order of the State Commission in any consumer dispute. The issue whether the order of the State Commission in Execution Petition is an order in a consumer dispute had been analysed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Karnataka Housing Board vs. K. A. Nagamani, (2019) 6 SCC 424.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the execution proceedings are different than the consumer disputes and an order passed in appeal in execution proceedings by the State Commission cannot be considered to be an order passed on a consumer dispute and hence, the Revision Petition cannot be filed against such order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a 14 consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’.

7.4. xxxxxxxxxxxx

7.5. xxxxxxxxxxxx

7.6 xxxxxxxxxxxx

7.7. We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute.

7.8. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings

7.9. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

8. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order passed by the National Commission on the ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. 4. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the present Revision Petition is dismissed. Stay stands vacated.
O R