Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 476
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Through its MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
MR. DALJIT SINGH MAHAL S/o. SHRI RANBIR SINGH – Respondent
APPEAL EXECUTION NO.14/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.15/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.16/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.17/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.18/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.21/2026|APPEAL EXECUTION NO.22/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pawan Kumar Ray
For the Respondents: Ravi Nayak, Karan Mehra, Sanjeev Gupta
Recovery of decretal amounts should primarily be sought against the judgment debtor company through attachment of assets under Order XXI CPC before initiating penal proceedings or coercive arrest warrants against directors under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the execution of decrees under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellants, comprising a company and its directors, challenged an order of the State Commission that issued bailable warrants of arrest against the directors to secure their attendance. The court found that the State Commission's direction to produce the directors immediately upon arrest, despite the warrants being bailable, was legally incorrect. The primary issue was whether the State Commission was justified in issuing bailable warrants against the directors to secure attendance or if there was material irregularity. The court reasoned that for bailable warrants, the individual is obligated to appear on the next date after furnishing bail; immediate production is only for non-bailable warrants. Furthermore, the court observed that recovery should first be sought against the judgment debtor company through attachment of assets under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before initiating penal action against directors under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. All the seven Appeals Execution coming under this order are disposed of with above stated directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural updates on party representation and the scope of the appeals filed by the directors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute regarding the satisfaction of decretal amounts and the necessity of show cause notices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. priority of company asset recovery over penal action and arrest of directors. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. conditional stay of coercive action pending verification of balance decretal amounts. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER
1. Respondents/Decree Holders in AE/14/2026, AE/15/2026, AE/16/2026, AE/17/2026 and AE/18/2026 were represented through Mr. Ravi Nayak, Advocate while Decree Holders in AE/21/2026 and AE/22/2026 were represented through Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate. He has not formally filed his vakalatnama yet. He is directed to file his memo of appearance before the Court Master today itself and file formal vakalatnama within three days.
2. Amended Appeal Executions along with amended memo of parties have since been filed by the Appellants in all the 7 cases as per which now the Appellant No.1 is the Judgment Debtor Company (M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) and Appellants No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the Judgment Debtor Company (Mr. Tarminder Singh and Mr. Dhanwant Singh Sidhu).
3. Challenge, as per the amended Appeals, is to the order dated 24.03.2026 of the State Commission vide which Bailable Warrants of Arrest have been issued against three Directors of the Judgment Debtor Company.
4. In AE/14/2026, AE/15/2026, AE/17/2026 and AE/18/2026, Arrest Warrants are against three Directors, namely, Mr.Tarminder Singh, Mr.Narinderbir Singh and Mr. Dhanwant Singh Sidhu, while in AE/21/2026 and AE/22/2026 Arrest Warrants are against two Directors Mr. Tarminder Singh and Mr.Dhanwant Singh Sidhu and in AE/16/2026, Decree Holder was directed to furnish names and addresses of the managing Director/Directors of the Judgment Debtor Company within a period of 5 days positively.
5. The present seven Appeals have been filed on behalf of the Appellants, including only two Directors Mr. Tarminder Singh and Mr.Dhanwant Singh Sidhu. No Appeal Execution has been filed on behalf of Mr. Narinderbir Singh, Director. Learned Counsel representing the Appellants, Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, categorically submitted that he is not representing Mr. Narinderbir Singh and no Appeal Execution has been filed on his behalf, as according to him, he has already resigned from the Company.
6. Notwithstanding the abovesaid submission of the learned Counsel representing the Appellants, as Mr. Narinderbir Singh has not filed any Appeal Execution, any order of this Commission in the present seven Appeal Executions will not affect the orders of the State Commission as regards Mr. Narinderbir Singh is concerned.
7. The short point to be considered in the present cases is whether the State Commission is justified in issuing Bailable Warrants of Arrest against the Directors of the Judgment Debtor Company to secure their attendance before it or whether there is any illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission.
8. At the outset, learned Counsel representing the Appellants, which includes Judgment Debtor Company also, submits that according to their calculations, the decree in all the seven cases has been fully satisfied and the calculations made by the State Commission are not correct, hence, there is no justification in State Commission taking coercive steps against the Directors of Judgment Debtor Company.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents contested such submissions stating that the decree(s) have not been fully satisfied and still some amounts are payable in these cases, for example, it was submitted that in AE/14/2026 corresponding to EA/71/2024 before the State Commission, approximately, ?12 Lakhs is still payable.
10. Although, learned Counsel for the Appellants made another submission
