Delhi High Court - Orders
Tdi Infratech Ltd vs Ranjit Singh on 18 January, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:19.01.2021
16:45:52
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 734/2021 & CM APPLs. 1834/2021, 1835/2021
TDI INFRATECH LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate (M:
9810980027)
versus
RANJIT SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 18.01.2021
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition primarily seeks that the appearance of the Directors of the Petitioner-company before the State Consumer Commission, be dispensed with in view of the fact that the Petitioner has complied with the impugned judgment dated 12th October, 2020.
3. A perusal of the record shows that the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (hereinafter, "State Commission") had observed vide order dated 26th November, 2020 that there was complete non-compliance of order dated 12th October, 2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission (hereinafter, `National Commission'). Hence, the State Commission had directed the Directors of the Judgment Debtor to appear before the Commission. The said order reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the DH stated that neither there is completion nor development at the spot, therefore, merely sending a letter by JD No.1 to the DH is not acceptable to the DH.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 734/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:18.01.2021 22:23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:19.01.2021 16:45:52
Whereas learned counsel for JD No.1 stated that they have already complied the above order.
Apparently there is non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No.615 of 2020. Therefore, learned counsel for JD No.1 is afforded an opportunity to file everything in writing and not to say orally. He is also directed to file calculation, duly certified by the Chartered Accountant with regard to Condition No.(4) of order of the Hon'ble National Commission. It appears that Conditions No.(1) & (4) of the Hon'ble National Commission order dated 12.10.2020 have not been complied with by JD No.1. Therefore, Directors of the JD are directed to appear before the Commission on the adjourned date.
Adjourned to 18.12.2020 for further proceedings."
4. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before the National Commission. Vide order dated 17th December, 2020, the National Commission has observed that there is no reason to dispense with the appearance of the Directors. Relevant paragraph of the said order reads as under:
"3. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, this interim application No. 7434 of 2020 is partly allowed, with the direction that the appellant/OP shall submit in writing before the State Commission, a full explanation of the case, as directed by the State Commission in the impugned order. As for personal appearance of the Directors, I find no reason to dispense with the same. The same shall therefore not be dispensed with. However, in view of the fact that the State Commission's direction for compliance of it's impugned order is 18.12.2020 i.e. tomorrow, it is further directed that the impugned order may be complied with within one month of 18.12.2020. Till then, the impugned order is stayed."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 734/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:18.01.2021 22:23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:19.01.2021 16:45:52
5. However, vide the said order, the National Commission has also stayed the impugned order of the State Commission for a period of one month i.e. till 18th December, 2020.
6. Ms. Agnihotri, ld. counsel submits that the Directors of the Petitioner company are all above 55 years of age and they are residents of Delhi. They would like to avoid travel in view of the pandemic. She also submits that there is complete compliance of the order of the National Commission and it is the complainant who is avoiding taking possession. She relies on photographs to show that the plot is ready for being handed over to the Complainant.
7. Without going into the question as to whether the order of the National Commission has been complied with or not, for the time being, only for the next date, all the Directors are permitted to join the proceedings through video conferencing. The CEO and a senior official looking after the finances of the Petitioner-company shall remain present before the State Commission on the next date. If on the next date, the State Commission is of the opinion that there is non-compliance, the Directors shall abide by whatever orders are passed by the State Commission.
8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.
9. Advance copy of this petition has been served upon the complainant before the State Commission through Mr. Kulwinder Singh, ld. counsel. A copy of this order shall be e-mailed by ld. counsel for the Petitioner to the complainant within 48 hours. The Complainant is given liberty to approach this Court, if so advised.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JANUARY 18, 2021/Rahul/T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 734/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:18.01.2021 22:23