1. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 1999. Previously, the First Petitioner was the Chairman of a Multi-National Company known as U.B. GROUP and the other Petitioners were the Executives/Employees of the U.B. Group of Companies. In the year 1982, a Company called Krest Development and Leasing Limited was incorporated and registered before the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. The U.B. Group of Companies, after following the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, acquired controlling interest in Krest Development and Leasing Limited and therefore, the said Company was renamed as Mcdowell Crest Finance Limited (Fourth Respondent herein).

2. While so, according to the First Petitioner, because of his other pre-occupations in other businesses of U.B. Group and as he was also non-resident Indian, he ceased to be the Director of the said Company even as early as on 20.03.1997 following the prescribed and requisite statutory formalities as laid down under the Companies Act. Similarly, according to the other Petitioners, they had also resigned as Directors in the Fourth Respondent-Company by following the prescribed statutory formalities. It is further alleged that the fact of resignation of the Petitioners have become effective and the same was also made known to all. Subsequently, the right to control and management of this Company had accordingly vested with the group called Rayudu Group and the name of the Fourth Respondent-Company was changed as M/s. Krest Finance Limited, it is contended.

3. While so, some Complaints were filed by the depositors before the Company Law Board alleging that the deposits received from them by the said Company were not repaid to them. According to the Petitioners, in exercise of the power under Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Company Law Board has issued certain directions in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors. While so, many other depositors, who were not parties before the Company Law Board started filing Complaints before various Consumer Redressal Forums under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming repayment of deposits with interest and damages. According to Petitioners, several orders were passed against the Petitioners and the Fourth Respondent-Company by the Consumer Forums and ail such orders were ex parte orders. Based on the said ex parte orders, now execution proceedings have been initiated and it is stated that coercive steps, like even arrest, are also likely to be resorted to by the Consumer Forums at the instance of the beneficiaries of the orders passed by the Consumer Forums. In those circumstances, the Petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition seeking the follow relief:

Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the provisions of Chapter III-B and Section-45-QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act read with Section 58-A of the Companies Act and the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 01.12.1998 has overriding effect over all other laws including the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and consequently direct the Respondents to adhere and implement the orders passed by Company Law Board and also refrain from taking any action, either Civil or Criminal or otherwise against the Petitioners who are not in charge of the affairs and management of Fourth Respondent as found by Company Law Board.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that when there are orders passed under Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act by the Company Law Board in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors, simultaneously, there cannot be any parallel proceedings before the Consumer Forums. He would further point out that when the Company Law Board has directed the Fourth Respondent-Company to repay the depositors in installments, it is far beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums to direct the Company to pay the amounts in full to the depositors, who were the Complainants before the Consumer Forums. It is further submitted that when the Petitioners have already resigned from the Fourth Respondent-Company, they have got nothing to do with the affairs of the Company and so no proceedings could be initiated against them under the Consumer Protection Act. For all these reasons, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed for in this Writ Petition.

5. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Velayutham Pitchaya and they have not filed any counter. The Fourth Respondent has not made any appearance. The Fifth Respondent is represented by the learned Government Advocate Mr. S. Sivashanmugam. The Sixth Respondent is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. R. Achuthan. There is no representation for the Seventh Respondent. Eighth Respondent is represented by learned Counsel Mr. T. Poornam and he has filed a detailed counter. There is no representation for the Ninth Respondent.

6. In the Counter filed by Eighth Respondent, it has been clearly stated that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, as per Section 3 of the said Act, are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. To put it otherwise, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, including Section 45-QA of the said Act. Therefore, as per Counter, there is no legal impediment or bar for the depositors to approach the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further stated that it has been held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Prudential Capital Markets Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2001 CPJ 230, that there is no legal bar for a consumer to approach the Consumers Forum, though, he can also avail the remedy under the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Eighth Respondent would lay stress on Section 45-Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act also, which reads as follows:

45-Q. Chapter III-B to override other laws.- The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument haying effect by virtue of any such law.

8. Referring to the above said provision, the learned Counsel for eighth Respondent would submit that if there is any provision contained in the Consumer Protection Act, which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, surely to that extent the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act will have overriding effect. He would add that, absolutely there is no inconsistency between the provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act and the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act and therefore, according to him, the relief prayed for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted, since, the depositors have got the option either to work out their remedy under the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act or under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully.

10. At the outset, I have to state that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed for non-impleading of necessary parties, viz., depositors, in whose favour orders have been either passed or proceedings have been initiated before the Consumer Forums, either original Complaints or Execution proceedings. A careful reading of the prayer made in the Writ Petition would go to show that if the relief sought for is granted it will virtually amount to nullifying all the proceedings under the said Act, including the orders already passed and the Execution proceedings, which are now pending before various Consumer Forums. When there are several orders passed by various Consumer Forums in favour of depositors, in my considered opinion, granting the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition would only be adverse to the interest of those depositors. As a matter of fact, this Writ Petition was admitted on 09.07.1999. On the same day, in W.M.P. No. 16707 of 1999, this Court granted interim stay of arrest and prosecution. In the same order, this Court directed the Petitioners to implead the complainants as parties in this Writ Petition. But, strangely, the petitioners have not impleaded the complainants as parties. Even to implead those depositors suo moto as parties in this Writ Petition as I have carefully gone through the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, I am at a loss to find any semblance of mention about the names of depositors, who are the parties before the Consumer Forums, in whose favour orders have either been passed or the proceedings are now pending. Therefore, without hearing the depositors and in the absence of depositors, who are the parties before the Consumer Forums, the relief prayed for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted at all.

11. Now, coming to the other aspects of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for Eighth Respondent, there is no legal bar or impediment for a depositor to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, though, he has got another remedy available alternatively under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. To this legal position, we may refer to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:

3. Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

12. A conjoint reading of Section 45-Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 19034, with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, would go to show that only in the event of any inconsistency between any of the provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act with that of the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, to the extent of such inconsistency, the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act will have overriding effect over the Consumer Protection Act. Regarding this legal position, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has got no quarrel. As a matter of fact, across the bar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners made a statement that there is no inconsistency between Chapter III-B of Reserve Bank of India Act and the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the depositor concerned has got option either to avail the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act or under the Reserve Bank of India Act.

13. But, what the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would contend is that when one forum has taken cognizance of the issues and has passed orders, thereafter, the other forum under the other Act cannot have a fresh proceedings, as the same may result in conflicting orders and directions from two different forums under two different enactments. Though, this argument appears to be some what attractive, I find no substance in the same. As it has been stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the Petitioners did not respond to the summons issued by the Consumer Forums from various places. Had it had been their case that already the Company Law Board had passed certain directions, which would cover the cases of all the depositors, certainly nothing would have prevented the Petitioners to make their appearance before the consumer Forums and to raise the plea before the Consumer Forums that in view of the orders passed by the Company Law Board, the Consumer Forums cannot pass a different kind or order. In such an event, the Consumer Forums would have had an occasion to consider the said plea and to take a decision as to whether the orders passed by the Company Law Board would be binding on the Complainants, who are before the Consumer Forums and whether the Consumer Forum could pass fresh orders in the matter. It is not known as to why the Petitioners have not chosen to make their appearance before the Consumer Forums.

14. Admittedly, various Consumer Forums have passed several orders in favour of the depositors. The said orders have become final. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that several such orders were passed ex parte. If it is true that the Petitioners have jot any grievance regarding the manner in which the Consumer Forums passed ex parte orders, the remedy for them lies else where either before the Consumer Forums or before this Court by way of revision, challenging the said ex parte orders. Even that remedy also has not been availed of by the Petitioners.

15. It is also contended before this Court that the Petitioners had already resigned from the Fourth Respondent-Company and therefore, the proceedings initiated against them before Consumer Forums by the depositors is wholly without jurisdiction. In my considered opinion, this question also cannot be resolved in this Writ Petition. As I have stated already even this plea could have been raised by the Petitioners by making appearance before the Consumer Forums, in which case, the Consumer Forums would have appreciated the said contention based on the evidence to be let in and to have decided, whether the Complaints as against the Petitioners herein were maintainable and whether any order could be passed against them or not. Even that remedy was also not availed of by the Petitioners.

16. Here, the Petitioners have impleaded the Commissioner of Police, Chennai; Commissioner of Police, Bangalore; and Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as Respondents 5 to 7 respectively to this Writ Petition. When a specific query was posed on the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as to why these Police Officials have been added as parties to this Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that in the Execution proceedings, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the arrest of the Petitioners can also be resorted to and that is the reason why they have been added as Respondents. In this regard, I have to state that under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, when there is such a provision enabling the Consumer Forums to issue warrants for the arrest of the defaulters, the same cannot be thwarted in any manner. If the Petitioners have got any grievance regarding the warrant for arrest issued in any particular case(s), they could have resolved the same in the manner known to law. In my opinion, the Respondents 5 to 7 have been added as unnecessary parties to this case and they have got no interest in the issues between the depositors and the Petitioners.

17. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another, 2009 (5) CTC 62 [LQ/SC/2009/1775] : 2009 (8) SCC 481 [LQ/SC/2009/1775] , relating to a dispute arose in respect of the correctness of telephone bill. The question raised was, whether the Consumer Forum has got the power to decide the said dispute when there are provisions in the Telegraph Act to work out the remedy. The Honble Supreme Court held that when the Telegraph Act, is a special enactment dealing with the subject, the same will have overriding effect over the Consumer Protection Act. Relying on the same, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Reserve Bank of India Act is a special enactment, whereas the Consumer Protection Act is a general enactment and therefore, according to him applying the principles stated in the said judgment, it has to be held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will have overriding effect over the Reserve Bank of India Act. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reasons enumerated infra.

18. So far as the issues involved in this Writ Petition are concerned, both Acts deal with the same and therefore, in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and Section 45-Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act, there is no question of Reserve Bank of India Act, having overriding effect over the Consumer Protection Act.

19. To repeat, I have to state that as per Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, if only there is any inconsistency between any of the provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act with that of the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, to the extent of such inconsistency the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act will have overriding effect over Consumer Protection Act. Provisions like Section 45-Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act is not found in the Telegraph Act. Therefore, the principle stated in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

20. At the same time, I have to refer to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Prudential Capital Markets Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2001 CPJ 230, wherein exactly the very same question relating to the provision of Section 45-QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, came up for consideration. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after having examined the said question in the light of various judgments and provisions has held as follows:

(iv) The provisions of Section 45-Q, 45-QA of the R.B.I. Act and Section 58-A(9) of the Companies Act, do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, from entertaining a consumer dispute case at the instance of depositor claiming repayment of the deposit from a non-banking Finance Company. In view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, remedy under the said Act is an additional remedy and the same cannot be taken away either by the R.B.I. Act or by the Companies Act.

(v) The order of the Company Law Board, Eastern Region Bench, Calcutta dated 27.5.1998 cannot be construed as either taking away the right of the depositors in these cases to approach the Consumer Forum or nullifying the orders passed by the District Forum/State Commission.

21. I am in full agreement with the said view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In view of all the above, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the Writ Petition has to necessarily fail.

22. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

23. After the order wad dictated, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that it may be clarified that the Petitioners have got liberty to challenge the orders of Consumer Forums. In my opinion, no such liberty need be specifically accorded by this Court as such right is always available to the Petitioner.