State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balraj Singh Mejie vs Raheja Developers Ltd. on 6 September, 2023
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH M.A. No. : 665 of 2023 in EA/33/2022 in CC No.01/2021 Date of Institution : 04.09.2023 Date of Decision : 06.09.2023 Balraj Singh Mejie son of Sh.Hardarshan Singh Mejie, resident of House No.3153, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh-166002 ...Non-applicant/Decree Holder VERSUS M/s Raheja Developers Limited (through its Managing Director) ....Judgment Debtor No.1 Navin Raheja, Managing Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited. ....Judgment Debtor No.2 Sangeet Kumar, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.3 Ajay Singh Chouhan, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.4 Sumit Grover, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.5 Arvind Aggarwal, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited. ....Applicant/Judgment Debtor No.6 Kirtika Bhardwaj, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.7 . Registered Office:- W4D, 204/5, Keshav Kunj, Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110080. ============================================================= M.A. No. : 666 of 2023 in EA/34/2022 in CC No.02/2021 Date of Institution : 04.09.2023 Date of Decision : 06.09.2023 Manjit Kaur Mejie son of Sh.Hardarshan Singh Mejie, resident of House No.3153, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh-166002 ...Non-applicant/Decree Holder VERSUS M/s Raheja Developers Limited (through its Managing Director) ....Judgment Debtor No.1 Navin Raheja, Managing Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited. ....Judgment Debtor No.2 Sangeet Kumar, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.3 Ajay Singh Chouhan, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.4 Sumit Grover, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.5 Arvind Aggarwal, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited. ....Applicant/Judgment Debtor No.6 Kirtika Bhardwaj, Additional Director/Director of M/s Raheja Developers Limited ....Judgment Debtor No.7 . Registered Office:- W4D, 204/5, Keshav Kunj, Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110080. Present:- Sh. Himanshu Raj, Advocate alongwith Ms.Sapna Randhawa, Advocate for the decree holder(s) Sh.Sahil Vij, Advocate, Sh.Ajay Pandit, Advocate and Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for judgment debtor no.6. ASI Virender (Belt No.3050/CHG) accompanied by Constable Chanchal (Belt No.3629/CP), PO & Summons Staff, U.T., Chandigarh alongwith Sh.Arvind Aggarwal s/o Sh.Brij Mohan Aggarwal (JD No.6). BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT By this order, we shall dispose of the abovecaptioned two applications bearing no. 665 of 2023 and 666 of 2023 titled as Balraj Singh Mejie and also Manjit Kaur Mejie Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited and others, as common questions of facts and law are involved therein.
In these cases, the complainant/decree holder (in short the decree holder) had filed consumer complaint bearing no.01 of 2021 and 02 of 2021 titled as Balraj Singh Mejie Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited and another and Manjit Kaur Mejie Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited and another which were partly allowed by this Commission vide common order dated 21.02.2022 whereby the judgment debtors/Raheja Developers were directed to refund the requisite amount alongwith interest, compensation etc. As per calculation sheet submitted by the decree holder, an amount of Rs.4,86,37,573.64 (in EA No.33 of 2022) and Rs.4,78,36,796.96 ps. (in EA No.34 of 2022) respectively, are due towards the judgment debtors. However, in the execution application bearing no.33 and 34 of 2022, all the Directors including the applicant have been impleaded.
The instant applications in these execution applications bearing no.33 and 34 of 2022 have been filed by the applicant namely Sh.Arvind Aggarwal for grant of regular bail on following grounds:-
He worked as director of Raheja Developers Limited/Judgment Debtor No.1 for a short span of less than 60 days i.e. from 28.06.2021 to 25.08.2021;
He is suffering from serious ailment and is patient of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension and his wife is suffering from Macro Adenona of Pituitary Gland with Acromeagly and hypertension who is under treatment at AIIMS, Delhi;
He is not liable to make payment of the decreetal amount;
He has moved an application before this Commission for deletion of his name from the array of the judgment debtors, which is pending adjudication;
These bail applications have been hotly contested by the decree holder on the ground that earlier the applicant was working in the capacity of Assistant Vice President (AVP) of the sister concern company of judgment debtor no.1. Then he joined as Director of Raheja Developers Limited and as such is liable under Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, it has been controverted that the applicant is suffering from any serious ailment.
We have heard the rival contentions of the contesting parties and have also gone through the record of thess cases, very carefully.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not liable to comply with the decree passed by this Commission, as his name was not mentioned in the decreetal orders; he worked as Director of Raheja Developers Limited/Judgment Debtor No.1 for a short span of less than 60 days i.e. from 28.06.2021 to 25.08.2021 and during that period no transaction pertaining to these cases took place and as such he has absolutely no liability for any transaction which took place in his absence; he and his wife are suffering from serious ailments; he has two daughters and he has to look after them. The applicant is seeking regular bail on medical and humanitarian grounds. He has placed reliance on Balwant Rai Saluja and anr. Versus Air India Ltd. and ors. Civil Appeal No.10264-10266 of 2013, decided on 25.08.2014.
On the other hand, counsel for the decree holder submitted that the applicant was an active Director and running day to day affairs of Raheja Developers Limited, which fact is evident from his resignation letter dated 26.08.2021, Annexure E-2; he is liable for payment of the decreetal amount; he is in the habit of absenting himself before this Commission and did not appear deliberately despite specific directions. In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the following case laws:-
Vasant Janardan Aher Versus Smita Shivajirao Kawale and others, Revision Petition No.187 of 2017 decided by the NCLT;
Ravi Kant Versus National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (1997 IIAD Delhi 225); and Sanjay K. Malviya Versus Siddharth Enterprises and another (2008) CPJ 74 (NC).
It may be stated here that so far as liability of the applicant qua payment of decreetal amounts is concerned, the same shall be considered at the appropriate stage of the execution proceedings. However, the applicant has placed on record the medical record/discharge summary issued by ARTEMIS, Gurugram (Annexure -6), showing that he is suffering from Idiopathic Intracranial hypertension (Benign intracranial hypertension). Similarly, he has also placed on record the medical record of his wife showing that she is taking treatment from AIIMS, Delhi for Pit Macroadenoma.
This Commission also got the applicant medically examined from the team of doctors of Government Multi Specialty Hospital Chandigarh (GMSH), Sector 16, Chandigarh, on 04.09.2023, whereafter, the said medical team has submitted its report advising the applicant for NEUROLOGY OPINION AT HIGHER CENTER FOR PSEUDOTUMOUR CEREBRI.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of these cases and without commenting on the merits of the cases, lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to get regular bail on medical and humanitarian grounds. Resultantly, these applications stand allowed. It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount, in each case, to the satisfaction of this Commission and also subject to the condition that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Commission and he will appear before this Commission as and when required.
Now to come up in the main execution applications on 11.09.2023 for the purpose already fixed for.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and copy be placed on the connected case file.
Pronounced.
06.09.2023 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg.