PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

AEA NO. 10 OF 2021

(Arising out of order dated 09.11.2021 passed in Execution Case No. 27/2018 by District Commission, Bhopal-1)

S. K. ARORA,

S/O SHRI O.P.ARORA,

C/O 56-58, SOMDUTT BUILDERS HOUSE,

COMMUNITY CENTRE, EAST OF KAILASH,

NEW DELHI-110 065 … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. ABHISHEK PATHAK,

S/O SHRI S. P. PATHAK

2. SMT. SUPRIYA PATHAK

W/O SHRI ABHISHEK PATHAK,

BOTH R/O HIG-45, NEAR MOTEL SIRAZ,

SHIVAJI NAGAR, BHOPAL …. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri S. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

(Passed On 29.08.2022)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party/appellant against the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District Commission) in

-2-

Execution Case No.27/2018 whereby arrest warrant has been issued against the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a complaint case no. 865/2016 before the District Commission against M/S SVS Buildcon and M/S Uni Homes alleging deficiency in service in not completing the construction of flat booked by the complainants and not delivering the possession of the same in time. The District Commission vide order dated 23.09.2017 directed the opposite parties to complete the construction of the flat within a period of five months and deliver the possession of the flat to the complainants and on payment of entire sale consideration sale deed be executed in their favour. Additionally, a sum of Rs.6,490/- per month from 01.01.2014 till possession was also directed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainants as compensation. Cost of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded. It was further ordered that in case, the order is not complied till 01.03.2018, the respondents/complainants will be entitled to cancel the allotment and the entire deposited amount to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainants along with compound interest @ 24% p.a.

3. When the opposite parties failed to comply with the aforesaid order, the complainants/respondents filed an Execution Case No. 27/2008 The District Commission after issuing notice to the opposite parties issued bailable warrant of arrest against the appellant and when he did not turn up

-3-

issued directions for arrest warrant vide impugned order which is under challenge.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has signed the vakalatnama as authorized signatory of the opposite parties on the basis of resolution passed on 15.04.2010. The appellant is an employee of Collage Estate Pvt. Ltd. whereby he was appointed by the said company. He further argued that in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 10856 of 2016 Bhupinder Singh Vs Unitech, the various complaints against the opposite parties including execution proceedings were adjourned sine die. It is therefore prayed that the order regarding issuance of arrest warrant against the appellant be set-aside as the appellant was neither a party in the complaint nor in the execution proceedings. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. K. Singla Vs Avta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document