Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 33104
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. DEEPAK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
MR. ANIMESH KUMAR MISHRA – Respondent
SC/29/A/2264/2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
Appeal No. 2264/2022
|
Deepak Kumar S/o. Satya Brat Singh Having residence at NO.302 Aditi Silver Residency, No.99 4th Cross, AGS Layout, New BEL Road Bengaluru 560 054
(By Sri. Vijay S.) V/s |
….Appellant |
S/o. Vijay Narayan Mishra R/at Flat No.307, 1st Block SMR Vinay Estate, Horamavu Banaswadi, Bangalore 560 043
W/o. Animesh Kumar Mishra R/at Flat No. 307, 1st Block SMR Vinay Estate, Horamavu Banaswadi, Bangalore 560 043
Infrastructure Ltd. (Undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) Having registered office at: Jaladarshni Layout, New BEL Road
Rep. by the Resolution Professional
|
..…Respondents |
O R D E R
BY
The appellant filed this appeal against the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the I Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Execution Petition No.13/2015 which rejected bail application filed by this appellant under Section 437 of Cr.PC and submits that the appellant/ Jdr. is one of the Director in the company. The decree holder had initially filed complaint against this Jdr. alleging deficiency in service in not completing the project and hand over possession of the flat. After trial District Commission allowed the complaint by passing common order in all the complaints which was filed by different complainants. After that the respondent had filed Execution Petition for compliance of the order. During trial Jdr. was arrested and remanded to the jail. Such being the case there are other execution petitions which are also pending before this Commission and this Jdr./appellant had moved an bail application before this Commission which was dismissed. Subsequently, Jdr. approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9310/2020. After hearing, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka directed this Commission to enlarge Jdr. on bail by accepting the surety. Accordingly, this Commission enlarged this appellant on bail as per the directions given by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Basing on the said facts this appellant had moved an application under Section 437 of Cr.PC in Execution Petition No.13/2015 before District Commission, but, the District Commission without considering the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and submission made by Jdr. rejected the bail application.
- The appellant further submits that Jdr. was in custody since from 2 years though the bail was granted by this Hon’ble Commission. The District Commission has not granted bail in this regard and there is a moratorium order in favour of this Jdr. before National Company Law Tribunal. Further if the Jdr. remained in jail he could not arrange for compliance of the order. If the Jdr. is released on bail no harm causes to the decree holder and the Jdr. is ready to furnish surety and comply other conditions imposed in this regard. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and enlarge the Jdr. on bail.
- Heard. On going through the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission on I.A. dated 18.06.2022 under Section 437 of Cr.PC in Execuion Petition No.13/2015, District Commission after noticing enlargement of bail of Jdr. by this Commission, upon order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.A. No.9310/2020, the District Commission has proceeded to reject the bail application for the reason that Jdr. may abscond if he is released on bail and also reflected reason that accused/ Jdr. has not preferred to pay amount for one or the other reason. Hence, rejected the bail. We are of the opinion that similar execution petitions were filed by decree holders be
