CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Miscellaneous Case No.MA/2016/07

Instituted on : 05.10.2016

Harish Kumar Dewangan, Aged 38 years,

S/o Shri Horilal Dewangan,

R/o : Village, Post & Police Station Gunderdehi,

District Balod (C.G.).

… Complainant.

Vs.

1. Smt. Sarita Bajpai, Aged about 42 years,

W/o Late Sanjay Kumar Bajpai,

Sleeping Partner,

Sanjay Bajpai Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Address : Third Floor, Krishna Complex,

Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)

Other address : Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.).

2. Yogeshwar Shukla, Aged about 45 years,

Director and Administrator – Sanjay Bajpai Builders

Private Limited,

Address : Office Third Floor, Krishna Complex,

Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)

3. Sanjay Bajpai Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Address – Office Third Floor, Krishna Complex,

Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) … Opposite Parties

PRESENT :

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER

HON’BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER

HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :

Shri Virat Verma, for the applicants (OPs).

// 2 //

ORDER

DATED : 18/10/2016

PER :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.

This is an application to recall under Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code along with the "Principle Actus Curiae Neminem

Gravabit" against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by this

Commission in Complaint Case No.CC/2016/14.

2. Briefly stated the facts mentioned in the application are that the

above complaint was disposed of by this Commission by its order

dated 12.09.2016. The O.P. No.1 beg to present this application under

the principle "principle actus curiae neminem gravabit", (an act of the

Court shall prejudice no one) for the recall of this order passed by this

Commission because the complainant has misled this Commission for

obtaining the impugned order by causing misconception or

misapprehension before this Commission and also the applicant did

not get an opportunity to produce submissions and evidences on record

which has caused substantial injury to the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2.

The O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 did not get a chance for proper representation

/ submission and to produce evidences before this Commission due to

mis-communication. Applicant wanted to engage an advocate of her

choice before the argument, who was known to the facts of all her

judicial proceedings. That the clerk of her previous advocate failed to

communicate about the no objection certificate from her previous

// 3 //

advocate due to which advocate of her choice could not plead on her

behalf. It is pertinent to mention that all the records which material to

her submission and evidences in the current case were, with her current

advocate, who failed to appear due to non-availability of no objection

certificate from her previous advocate. The O.P. No.2 is neither

responsible in personal capacity nor as a director of O.P.No.3 against

the criminal wrong done intentionally / forcibly by Shri Sanjay Bajpai

in individual capacity since the O.P.No.2 was not the director at the

time of the execution of the agreement to sale dated 26.05.2014. It is

also pertinent to mention that, O.P.No.2 has accepted to become the

director of the O.P.No.3 after the perusal of MOA and AOA of the

company O.P.No.3 where it was categorically mentioned that every

director and officer of the company shall be indemnified by the

company from and against law suits, proceeding cost, charges, losses

and expenses and the amount of such indemnity as provided shall

immediately attached a lien on the property of the company subject to

the provision of Section 201 of the Companies Act, 1956. There was

no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs, therefore,

the complainant was not entitled for relief / compensation under

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Shri Sanjay Bajp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document