Consumer forum jurisdiction over deposit repayment claims remains intact despite company-law repayment schemes and writ objections.

Consumer Protection Act remedies remained available for depositors against a non-banking financial company because the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Companies Act, 1956 did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude Consumer Fora jurisdiction. A writ of prohibition could not be used to stop implementation of orders already passed by the Consumer Fora; the proper remedy was not prohibition in these circumstances. The Company Law Board repayment order did not nullify the consumer proceedings, as interested depositors had not been given adequate notice and opportunity. Discretionary writ relief was also refused because the petitioner suppressed material facts and had alternative remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of prohibition would lie against the Consumer Fora after they had already passed orders in the depositor claims; (ii) Whether the Consumer Fora's jurisdiction was excluded by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Companies Act, 1956 in matters of repayment of deposits by a non-banking financial company; (iii) Whether the Company Law Board's repayment order displaced or nullified the proceedings and orders before the Consumer Fora; (iv) Whether the petitioner was disentitled to relief on account of suppression of facts and availability of alternative remedies.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of prohibition would lie against the Consumer Fora after they had already passed orders in the depositor claims?

Analysis: Prohibition is a preventive writ meant to restrain a tribunal from acting without jurisdiction. It does not ordinarily lie to undo an order already made, and where the inferior forum has already decided the matter, the proper remedy is certiorari rather than prohibition. The writ is also controlled by settled considerations of discretion, including delay and the existence of an adequate alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ of prohibition was not maintainable to stop implementation of orders already passed by the Consumer Fora.

Issue (ii): Whether the Consumer Fora's jurisdiction was excluded by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Companies Act, 1956 in matters of repayment of deposits by a non-banking financial company?

Analysis: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial enactment and section 3 declares that its remedies are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. The provisions relating to the Company Law Board and repayment of deposits under sections 45Q and 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956 did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude Consumer Fora jurisdiction. The statutory scheme supported concurrent remedies, and the non obstante clause in section 45Q was construed as empowering the Company Law Board without extinguishing consumer remedies.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora was not ousted, and the depositor could proceed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue (iii): Whether the Company Law Board's repayment order displaced or nullified the proceedings and orders before the Consumer Fora?

Analysis: Although the Company Law Board passed a repayment scheme, the order was made without valid notice to all interested depositors and did not establish a binding exclusion of the Consumer Fora's authority. The principles of natural justice under section 10E(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the provisos to section 58A(9) of that Act and section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 required reasonable opportunity to persons interested. On the facts, the Company Law Board order could not override the consumer proceedings or invalidate the forum's orders.

Conclusion: The Company Law Board order did not nullify the Consumer Fora's proceedings or orders.

Issue (iv): Whether the petitioner was disentitled to relief on account of suppression of facts and availability of alternative remedies?

Analysis: The petitioner had already pursued appeals in some matters and did not disclose material facts relating to those proceedings while seeking writ relief. A party invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction must come with full candour, and the availability of appeal and further statutory remedy weighed against grant of extraordinary relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed in view of the maintainability limits on prohibition, the concurrent consumer jurisdiction, the ineffectiveness of the Company Law Board order to oust that jurisdiction, and the petitioner's suppression of material facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 remain available unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, and a writ of prohibition cannot be used to stop implementation of orders already passed by a subordinate forum.

---