Satya Brata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner has moved this application ex-parte praying for the following reliefs:- a) Rule 27A be dispensed with. b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commending the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, subordinates or otherwise however to act in accordance with law and forthwith:- (i) recall, revoke, rescind and/or cancel the said purported notice being Annexure 'A' to the petition. (ii) recall, revoke rescind and/or cancel the cognizance taken by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the said complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. (iii) refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect or acting on the basis of or pursuant to the said complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and/or the notice being Annexure 'A' to this petition; (iv) desist from continuing with the said proceedings being Complaint No. 328/94 (Dinesh Kumar v. Assambrook Ltd.) pending before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Alwar in the State of Rajasthan; (v) refrain from directing the petitioner No. 1 to appear/before the respondent No. 1 in any manner whatsover. c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants, agents subordinates and/or otherwise howsoever to forthwith transmit and certify to this Hon'ble Court the records of the case including the said purported notice and/or other notices issued against the petitioner No. 1 so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same and all further actions which are detrimental to the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at No. 1 Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) The petitioner No. 1 received a notice on or about 12th September, 1994, issued by the respondent No. 1 along with a copy of the complaint of the respondent No. 2 whereby it was directed to appear before him on 22nd September, 1994, and was also directed to submit a written reply along with the documents against the said complaint. The petitioner has contended that a perusal of the said complaint would show that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to determine the same. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2 has apparently sold one hundred shares to Dipankar Mitra and three hundred shares to Ram Nath Malik,. It has been contended that the local police at Alwar had conducted an investigation in respect of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No. 2 in respect of the loss of the four hundred share Certificates and it has been confirmed through investigation thereof that the said complaint was totally false as he had already sold the said 400 shares. The petitioner's contentions that the petitioner No. 1 is not a Trader in respect of the said equity shares, within the meaning of the Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the 'said Act'). The said complaint is wholly mis-received. It is stated that in any event as the complaint is relating to non-issue of duplicate shares, the respondent No. 1 has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. It is further stated that all statutory records i.e. Share register. Minute book pertaining to the Board Meetings and transfer deeds etc. are located at the registered office at Calcutta and thus no part of cause of action arose at all at Alwar and the respondent No. 1 had no manner of right, warrant, authority and or jurisdiction to entertain the purported complaint.;