ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Bharti, Advocate for the respondent.

2.      Above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 16.05.2024 whereby the State Commission has declined to recall the order dated 19.03.2024 issuing warrant of arrest against the appellant.

3.      It is admitted to the appellant that the respondent booked a flat in the project launched by the VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (developer) in the year 2007. The developer, vide allotment agreement dated 09.02.2008 allotted flat No.H-704 for total consideration of Rs.3164850/-. As per agreement, possession as to be handed over in January, 2010. It is alleged that although the developer has realised Rs.2957902/- but has failed to handover possession on due date. Therefore, the respondent initially filed a complaint before the District Forum but on account of pecuniary jurisdiction it was returned and thereafter the respondent filed CC/214/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint vide order dated 16.03.2021 and directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. and also pay a compensation of Rs.150000/- and cost of Rs.50000/-. The developer did not challenge the aforesaid decree and the decree has become final. In spite of the fact that the developer was directed to refund the amount till 15.06.2021, the developer failed to refund the amount. Then EA/17/2022 was filed on 18.02.2022. As the developer has not satisfied the decree, the respondent moved IA/320/2022 for issue of warrants against the Directors of the developer. The State Commission, therefore, vide order dated 19.03.2024 issued warrants. The appellant filed IA/1421/2024 for recall of the order. After hearing the appellant the State Commission has rejected the IA and directed the office to issue warrants. Hence, this appeal has been filed.  

4.      In the IA/1421/2024, the appellant has stated that he was appointed as Director of the developer on 26.12.2020 while the amount as deposited by the respondent was prior to 2010, therefore, he was not liable to refund that amount. It has been further alleged that the appellant was not arrayed as the opposite party in the complaint and the decree is not passed against the appellant. The Appellant was not even arrayed as opposite party in the execution application. The Code of Civil Procedure does not contain any provision for execution of a decree against the company. The money decree can be executed under Order 21 Rule 50 CPC, procedure for which has been provided for execution of the decree against the firm. The State Commission straightway has issued arrest warrants against the appellant without issuing any notice or summons in the first instance in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in L & T Finance Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Rana & Anr. (2021) 20 SCC 810 in which the bailable warrant issued by this Commission against the Director has been set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that in the facts of the case issuance of warrants against the Director of OP-2 was not warranted at this stage. He submits that the order of the State Commission is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

5.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as the judgment of Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Rana (supra) is concerned, in that case during pendency of the complaint, OP-1 stated that the matter has been settled between the parties. The settlement was challenged by the complainant on the ground that his signature has been obtained on blank papers under the threat. The National Commission, therefore, vide order dated 26.08.2021 directed the Director of OP-1 to appear before the Commission. On