https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104838 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. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:10:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104838 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104838