IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal against issuance of non-bailable warrants in proceedings initiated by a decree holder under Section 27 of Act is not maintainable under Section 27-A of Act.

This Appeal, by the judgement debtor, a real estate developer, purportedly under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is directed against the orders dated 9.3.2018 and 15.3.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”), in Execution Application No. EA/17/107. By the first order, the State Commission had directed issue of non-bailable warrants against the Appellant as on that date, despite service of notice in the Execution Application, filed by the Complainant/decree-holder, he as well as his counsel failed to appear and the Counsel appearing for him did not have the authority letter to represent him. By the latter order, the State Commission has dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant, praying for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants directed to be issued against him vide order dated 9.3.2018, observing thus:

“Heard on the application filed for cancellation of Non-bailable warrant which is strongly objected on behalf of executants/complainants on the ground that opponent/accused had jumped the bail and did not comply with the final order. Unless opponent/accused show compliance of final order and report about it, we are not inclined to release him on bail. He shall attend on the next date and if report compliance of final order, his prayer for release can be considered. Application for cancellation of Non-bailable warrant is rejected. Matter is already adjourned to 24.04.2018.”

2. Assailing both the orders, particularly the order dated 15.3.2018, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has strenuously urged that since before the execution of the warrants, the Appellant had voluntarily appeared before the State Commission along with his Counsel, the object of securing his presence was achieved and therefore, the State Commission erred in not cancelling the non-bailable warrants. In support of the proposition that the process of issuance of non-bailable warrants should be resorted to only when the accused does not respond to the summons and bailable warrants, which in the instant case were not issued in the first instance, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors. – (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. – (2012) 9 SCC 791. It is asserted that the order directing issue of non-bailable warrants against the Appellant deserves to be set aside on this short ground alone.

3. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel, we are of the view that an Appeal against the issuance of non-bailable warrants, in the proceedings initiated by a decree holder under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable under Section 27-A of the Act. A plain reading of the said Section suggests that an Appeal under the said Section lies to the State Commission or to this Commission against the final order made by the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, under Section 27 of the Act. In our opinion, the Act does not postulate interjection by the Appellate Authority, be it the State Commission or this Commission, at any or every stage of Execution proceedings before the lower Fora.

4. For the view we have taken, the afore-noted decisions, pressed into service by the learned Counsel explaining the scope of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and enumerating the broad principles to be borne in mind while deciding to issue non-bailable warrants against an accused are of no avail to the Appellant.

5. Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine, with liberty to the Appellant to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy, as may be available to him, for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants.

Order dasti.

Appeal dismissed.