SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Arvind Aggarwal – Petitioner
Versus
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Anr. – Respondents
CWP NO.28258 of 2023 AND CWP NO.28210 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sahil Vij, Advocate; For the Petitioner

A director's resignation is effective only upon notification to the Registrar, and interim orders in execution proceedings are not subject to writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 72 - Writ petition against interim order passed in execution proceedings - Petitioner sought deletion from judgment debtors after resignation as Director - Commission dismissed application as not maintainable - Court held that resignation must be notified to Registrar to take effect and interim orders do not warrant interference. (Paras 3, 8, 11)

(B) Execution Proceedings - Nature of orders - Writ petition not maintainable against interim orders in execution proceedings, as they are penal in nature and appeal lies under Section 73 to the National Consumer Commission. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Commission's order dismissing his application to remove his name from judgment debtors after a complaint against the developer for service delays. The petitioner claimed he was no longer a director at the time of execution.

Findings of Court:
The Commission's interim order was upheld; the petitioner’s resignation had not been properly notified, thus he remained liable.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was still liable as a director and if the writ petition against interim orders was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a director's resignation is effective only upon notification to the Registrar, and interim orders in execution proceedings are not subject to writ jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 namely the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') whereby it dismissed the miscellaneous application moved by the petitioner for deleting his name from the array of judgment debtors.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was filed against M/s Raheja Developers Limited, before the Commission seeking refund of the amount along with the guaranteed premium, interest, compensation etc. as the company had delayed in providing services. Several other allegations were levelled apart from the above in the complaint and after having considered the said complaint, an order was passed on 21.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) by the Commission, whereby it directed as follows:-

"In consumer complaint bearing No. 01 of 2021 the developer/opposite party no.1 was directed as under:

i. To refund the entire amount of Rs.2,13,25,900/- paid by the complainant alongwith the amount of guaranteed premium compensation @ Rs. 1400/- per square feet of the area of unit alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 22.09.2017 (60 days from completion of 36 months from the date of booking of unit) without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and failure to do so shall entail additional compensation of Rs.1000/- per day, till realization.

It is made clear that in case any amount stood refunded to the complainant out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,13,25,900/- and guaranteed premium compensation, the same shall be deducted accordingly, by the developer.

ii. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any, which stood auto debited from his account by opposite party no.2-ICICI Bank, towards equated monthly installments alongwith taxes/miscellaneous charges, on the loan amount, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deductions till realization, as it was the legal obligation of the developer to pay the said EMIs, as agreed to, under the tripartite agreement and also MOU aforesaid, which fact has not been disputed by the developer.

It is also made clear that the developer-opposite party no.1 shall repay the entire pending/future EMIs alongwith taxes/miscellaneous charges, of the loan amount, to opposite party no.2-ICICI Bank, alongwith up-to-date interest on the loan account and keep the complainant fully indemnified in this regard, till the time refund of the aforesaid amount is made to the complainant.

iii. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

In consumer complaint bearing No.02 of 2021 the developer/opposite party no.1 was directed as under:-

i. To refund the entire amount of Rs.2,00,89,129/- paid by the complainant alongwith the amount of guaranteed premium compensation @ Rs.1400/- per square feet of the area of unit alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 22.09.2017 (60 days from completion of 36 months from the date of booking of unit) without deducting any TDS, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and failure to do so shall entail additional compensation of Rs.1000/- per day, till realization.

It is made clear that in case any amount stood refunded the complainant out of the aforesaid amount of to Rs.2,00,89,129/- and guaranteed premium compensation, the same shall be deducted accordingly, by the developer.

ii. To refund the amount to the complainant, if any, which stood auto debited from her ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top