Back
C. VISWANATH, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
Prem Adip Rishi Ex-Managing Director MVL Limited – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Yadav – Respondent
ORDER
This Appeal Execution is directed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 08.12.2021 in EA/49/2018, whereby the State Commission issued conditional non-bailable warrants against the Appellant/Judgment Debtor to be present in person before the State Commission with the first instalment amount to be paid to the decree holder. State Commission further directed that if the judgment debtor does not comply with the direction to appear before the State Commission on 23.12.2021, his presence shall be secured by way of non-bailable warrants.
2. The State Commission, vide order dated 24.05.2018 in CC/391/20196 directed the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor as under: -
“In view of the above, the complaint is allowed. MVL Limited-Developer is directed to pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty Lakh Only) to the Complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the developer within a period of
Illegal Decree - The Judgment Debtor cannot take the ground before the Executing Court or before National Commission in Appeal Execution that the decree dated 24.05.2018 is illegal.
(1) Judgment Debtors did not comply with the order of the State Commission and failed to personally appear before the State Commission, except once.(2) Judgment Debtors repeatedly approached this Com....
1) Judgment Debtors/Appellants not mentioned details of the Appeal filed before this Commission against the order dt. 31.03.2021 passed by the State Commission and not mentioned whether order dt 31.0....
“Judgment-debtors have to be present and satisfy the Executing Court regarding compliance of the order under execution.”
Appeal Execution – The impugned Order against which the present Appeal Execution has been filed cannot be termed to be an Order passed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at all.
Settled law that Executing Courts cannot go behind the Decree
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
