STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/22/85

1. M/s Status Construction (P) Ltd.

Having office at 103, Sankalp-I, Janakalyan Nagar, Off Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400095. 2. Mr. Mukesh Motilal Garg, 103, Sankalp-I, Jankalyan Nagar, Off Marve Road, Malad (W) ....... Executants Mumbai 400095.

Versus Sankalp Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.

Thru' it's duly elected Chairman/Hon.Secretary Janakalyan Nagar Off Marve Road, Malad (W) Mumbai 400 095 ………Respondent BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Advocate Anand V. Patwardhan for revision petitioners.

Advocate C.S.Malhotra i/b. Advocate U.B.Wavikar for PRESENT: respondent.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.13/02/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petition is filed against the impugned order dated

11/05/2022 passed in Misc. application dated 16/12/2021 passed by the Ld. Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban u/sec.47(1)(b)

of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. The Revision Petitioner nos.1 and 2 who are the Original Opponents and the Respondent society herein named is the Original Complainant Society, in the complaint No. 90/2006 and Applicant in the E.A. No. RBT/EA/322/2011, filed u/s 27, of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Petitioners for the execution of the order dated 02/05/2011, passed in Original Complaint No. 90 of 2006.

3. The order dated 02/05/2011 was challenged before the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission vide F.A.No. 443 of 2011, which was dismissed against which a Revision was filed before the Hon'ble National Commission, being R.P. No 680 of 2013. The Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to remand the matter back to Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State Commission decided the matter by order dated 26/11/2012 in RBT/EA/12/931 and the order dated 02/05/2011, in Original Complaint No. 90 of 2006 was modified

4. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal and thereafter despite having knowledge of the Revision Petition which was admitted and the order stayed, thereby the said order cannot be said to have attained finality, the Respondent society filed execution proceeding U/s 27, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State Of Kerala & Ors. (2000)

6 SCC 359, execution of such an order cannot be done.

5. Details of the proceedings filed in continuation of the impugned order dated

02/05/2011 in Original Complaint no.90 of 2006.

6. The Petitioners herein after learning about certain facts which the Respondent society had deliberately concealed filed an application being M.A. No: Nil, dated 16/12/2021, in the said Execution proceeding for recalling the process issued by fraud and misrepresenting done by the Respondent society, on the grounds of the said order being null and void and that the Chairman had no authority to file the Execution proceedings, amongst other grounds.

7. The aforesaid execution proceedings came to be instituted in 2011. The Managing Committee of the Respondent society was formed in the general body meeting held on 09.08.2009, thus deemed to have been vacated their office w.e.f. 25.08.2009 as M20 bond was not executed within 15 days by the Managing Committee members, as contemplated u/s 73(1AB) of the said act.

8. The petitioners/Opponents herein ch