RAJASEKHAR MANTHA,J. - (1.) The revision petitioner's grievance is with regard to a warrant of arrest issued by the District Consumer Forum in CC 424 of 2013 arising out of a final order passed by the Consumer Forum. The revision petitioner is a promoter engaged in the business of construction and sale of flat units and or other immovable properties. The lis before the Consumer Forum was inter alia initiated by the opposite party/purchaser of flat units to be constructed by the promoter under an agreement in writing. The opposite parties are aggrieved by non-delivery of complete flat units under the agreement referred to here above by the revision petitioner.
(2.) The opposite parties in lieu of delivery of possession, registration of the flat units referred to hereinabove desired refund of the purchase price paid by them together with interest. The Consumer Forum allowed such prayers. The revision petitioner before me claims, fraud having been perpetrated by the original landlord of the land over which the construction of the building by the promoter was undertaken. Civil proceedings and orders of injunction are stated to have been initiated and obtained by a third party claiming to be actual owner of the land in question.
(3.) Before this Court the revision petitioner urges a three fold argument - (a) That the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (The 1986 Act) did have jurisdiction to entertain any grievance against a promoter in view of the provisions of the West Bengal (Regulation of Permission of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 (the 'said Act'). The said Act has been modified from time to time. There is an express bar in terms of Section 12A of the said Act from any Civil Court entertaining any dispute being the subject matter of the said Act. The Consumer Protection Act having been saved by the said Act, the authorities under the 1986 Act do have jurisdiction to entertain any such dispute. (b) There is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the Revision petitioner and the intending flat owners and hence District Consumer Redressal Forum could have even otherwise entertained any proceeding within the meaning of the 1986 Act. (c) That there are other civil proceedings pending by and between the said third party and the landlord of the premises and the Revision petitioner in which injunction has been passed which has prevented the promoter from completing the construction of the property.;