State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranji Bhandari & Anr vs M/S Shipra Estate Ltd & Jai Krishan ... on 8 April, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. NC/EA/7/2024
IN
NC/CC/89/2017
WITH
NC/IA/12791/2025 (PLACING RECORD)
NC/IA/14574/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
MADHULEKHA SAWHNEY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 19, GREEN AVENUE, VASANT KUNJ. , NEW DELHI , DELHI ,
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & 3 ORS.
PRESENT ADDRESS - D-32, LAXMI NAGAR, MAIN VIKAS MARG. , NEW DELHI , DELHI ,
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMEN, VIKASH PATH, , GHAZIABAD ,
UTTAR PRADESH ,
.......Respondent(s)
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. NC/EA/10/2024
WITH
NC/IA/1017/2026 (IMPLEADMENT OF PARTIES)
NC/IA/2036/2026 (CORRECTION OF ORDER)
NC/IA/1138/2026 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)
RANJI BHANDARI & ANR
PRESENT ADDRESS - 8A, PADAMI ENCLAVE, HUAZ KHAS, , NEW DELHI , DELHI ,
PREMA BHANDARI
PRESENT ADDRESS - 8A, PADAMI ENCLAVE, HUAZ KHAS, , NEW DELHI , DELHI ,
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ANR
PRESENT ADDRESS - D-32, LAXMI NAGAR, MAIN VIKAS MARG, , NEW DELHI , DELHI ,
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, VIKASH PATH, , GHAZIABAD ,
UTTAR PRADESH ,
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
IN EA/7/2024 & EA/10/2024 FOR THE COMPLAINANT / DH(S) : MR. , KISHAN
RAWAT, ADVOCATE APPLICANT IN IA/12033/2025 & : MR. SHARAD TYAGI, MS. K.
GAYATRI & IA/14574/2025 IN EA/7/2024 MR. SAMARTH GOGIA, ADVOCATES
APPLICANT IN IA/1017/2026 & : MR.HEMANT CHAUDHURI, ADVOCATE &
IA/1138/2026 IN EA/10/2024 MR. VASU GOYAL, ADVOCATE IN EA/7/2024 &
EA/10/2024 FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY/JD(S) : MR. MANISH SRIVASTAVA,
ADVOCATE MS. SHIVANI GERA, ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHALINI KHANNA, AR
DATED: 08/04/2026
ORDER
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the present complaint bearing no 89/2017 & 3689/2017 titled as Madhulekha Sawhney V Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited & Anr. And Ranji Bhandari & Anr. V Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited & Anr. under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed before this Commission. The Madhulekha Sawhney & Ranji Bhandari/ complainants (herein referred to as complainants) were allottees in the Project Shipra Krishna at Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad proposed to be developed by Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited /the opposite party no 1(herein referred to as the opposite party no 1). The opposite party no 1 proposed to develop flats with various amenities. The complainants booked the flats by paying the booking amount and were issued allotment letters. The balance amount was to be paid in 7 instalments. The complainants paid instalments on time till May 2008 in CC/89/2017 and till January 2008 in CC/3689/2017 .The opposite party no 1failed to deliver possession of the flats within stipulated period. The complainants alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint before this commission.
1. The opposite party no 1 filed reply in both the complaints and stated that, did not dispute the flat booking dated 26.09.2006, the allotment of Flat No. Gulmohar- 1301 on 07.04.2007(CC/ 89/2017) and the allotment of Flat No. Gulmohar-1302 on 09.04.2007 (CC/3689/2017), or the deposits made by the Complainants. However, the Builder alleged that the Complainants had consistently defaulted in timely payment of instalments throughout the transaction, and that despite repeated demand and reminder letters, payments were habitually made after their due dates. It was further submitted that the Complainant ceased making payments entirely after the instalment due on 31.07.2008, resulting in accrual of interest on account of such delays. The Builder vide letter dated 13.03.2009 revised the payment schedule for the remaining instalments, communicating the same to the Complainants. Despite this accommodation, the Complainants failed to deposit any amount under the revised plan. The Builder subsequently apprised its customers of financial difficulties being faced in project completion vide letter dated 19.08.2009, and thereafter, vide letter dated 24.08.2009 in CC/ 89/2017 and 23.10.2009 in CC/3689/2017, informed the Complainants that delay compensation payable would be adjusted against her outstanding dues.
2.1 Through successive communications dated 14.01.2012, 18.10.2012, 11.06.2013, and 04.07.2013, the Builder periodically revised and communicated the outstanding dues, adjusting delay compensation at each stage. A meeting held on 12.03.2014 further apprised the Complainant of the progress of construction and imminent possession. Notwithstanding these efforts, the Complainant failed to deposit the balance amounts or comply with the requisite formalities, despite repeated reminders issued on 11.08.2016, 08.09.2016, and 04.01.2017 in CC/ 89/2017. In CC/3689/2017 the builder revised the payment plan, scheduling the remaining instalments on or before 31.03.2009, 30.06.2009, 30.09.2009, and 30.11.2009; however, the complainants failed to deposit any instalment. Vide letter dated 14.01.2012, after adjusting delay compensation payable up to 31.12.2011, the builder rescheduled a balance of Rs.39,25,642/- in three equal instalments, against which the complainants failed to deposit the third instalment. Construction was completed by October 2014.
2.2 With respect to the delay in project completion, the Builder attributed the same to force majeure circumstances, including unsatisfactory performance by the initial contractor and a severe market downturn in the real estate sector from 2008 onwards, which resulted in widespread payment defaults by allottees aggregating to approximately Rs.32 crores in outstanding receivables. The Builder contended that the project was ultimately completed by October 2014, the Completion Certificate was duly applied for, and possession was formally offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 11.01.2016, by which time approximately 74 other buyers had already taken possession. The Builder maintained that all demands raised were strictly in accordance with the terms of the allotment letter and that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
2. The opposite party no 2 filed reply wherein stated that stating that tenders were invited for the development of Module-II Indrapuram Residential Scheme, pursuant to which the bid of M/s. Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Kishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. was found most suitable and accepted. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 08.01.2001, whereby the developer was entrusted with the responsibility of developing the scheme in accordance with the approved layout plan and was granted the right to sell its units. The sole obligation of Opposite Party-2 was to execute sub-lease deeds in favour of buyers as and when directed by the developer.
3. This Commission vide order dated 29.05.2023 partly allowed the consumer complaint in following terms:-
CC/89/2017 In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party-1 is directed to issue fresh statement of account charging interest @9% per annum on the balance amount payable by the complainant after 12.01.2016, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The complainant will be given one month time to deposit the balance amount. On deposit of the balance amount, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainant complete in all respect within six weeks thereafter. If the complainant fails to deposit the balance amount, opposite party-1 shall cancel the allotment of the complainant and return the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, after deducting 10% of the basic sale price of the flat, within a period of two months thereafter.
CC/3689/2017 In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party-1 is directed to issue fresh statement of account charging interest @9% per annum on the balance amount payable by the complainants after 12.01.2016 and giving delay compensation till 11.01.2016, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The complainant will be given one month time to deposit the balance amount. On deposit of the balance amount, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the flat allotted to the complainant complete in all respect within six weeks thereafter.
4. The Complainants preferred review application no. 237 & 236 of 2023 against the Order dated 29.5.2023, which was dismissed by this Commission on 01.08.2023. The complainants being aggrieved filed Civil Appeal No 5741-5742/2023 & 5743-5744 /2023 before the Supreme Court which was decided vide order dated 11.09.2023 wherein the court dismissed the civil appeal. The Complainants filed Misc. Application No. 2082- 83/2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5741-5744/2023 and Misc. Application No. 2084-85/2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5742/2023 before the Supreme Court, seeking extension of time for compliance with the Order dated 29.05.2023 passed by this Commission in CC No. 89/2017 and CC No. 3689/2017. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.10.2023, with liberty granted to approach this Commission. Pursuant thereto, MA No. 511/2023 and MA No. 512/2023 was filed before this Commission, which was allowed vide Order dated 20.12.2023, extending the time for payment of the balance amount by 30 days.
5. Following the Order dated 20.12.2023, the complainant offered payment of the balance amount to opposite party no. 1 via email dated 28.12.2023. In response, opposite party no. 1 refused to accept the said payment vide email dated 29.12.2023, advising that their clients pursue statutory remedies against the Order of the NCDRC. Accordingly, opposite party no. 1 has failed to comply with the Order dated 29.05.2023 read with the Order dated 20.12.2023 passed by this Commission.
6. The complainants/decree holders filed the separate execution petitions under sections 25(3) read with section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 titled as Madhulekha Sawhney V Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited & Anr. bearing no 07 of 2024 And Ranji Bhandari through LRs & Anr. V Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited & Anr. bearing no 10 of 2024 and prayed for :
EA/07/2024
(i) direct the OP No.1 and OP No.2 to maintain status quo, as was existing on 10.10.2023, with respect to Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1301' (Shristi)', Shipra Krishna, Ahinmsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh till the disposal of the present execution petition,
(ii) directions may be issued for personal appearance of Mr. Mohit Singh, Partner of OP No.1, M/s Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., before this Hon'ble Commission and he may be directed to execute conveyance deed and handover unconditional physical possession of Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1301 (Shristi)', Shipra Krishna, Ahinmsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, to the JD / Complainant in terms of the Order dated 29.5.2023,
(iii) alternatively, by issuing the warrant of attachment against moveable and immoveable properties of the Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party No.1, including bank accounts, for the compliance of the directions contained in the Order dated 29.5.2023,
(iv) as a last resort, by way of arrest of Mr. Mohit Singh, Partner of the Judgment Debtor / Opposite Party No.1 and detaining him in prison till full compliance of all the directions issued by this Hon'ble Commission in its Order dated 29.5.2023.
(V) pass any or further order(s) as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Commission.
EA/ 10/2024
(i) direct the OP No. 1 and OP No 2 to maintain status quo, as was existing on 10.10.2023, with respect to Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1302 (Shristi)', Shipra Krishna, Ahinmsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh till the disposal of the present execution petition,
(ii) directions may be issued for personal appearance of Mr. Mohit Singh, Partner of OP No.1, M/s Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt Ltd., before this Hon'ble Commission and he may be directed to execute conveyance deed and handover unconditional physical possession of Flat No 'Gulmohar-1302 (Shristi)', Shipra Krishna, Ahinmsa Khand, Indirapuram, Distt Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, to the JDs/Complainants in terms of the Order dated 29.5.2023 passed in CC No.3689/2017,
(iii) alternatively, by issuing the warrant of attachment against moveable and immoveable properties of the Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party No.1, including bank accounts, for the compliance of the directions contained in the Order dated 29.5.2023,
(iv) as a last resort, by way of arrest of Mr. Mohit Singh, Partner of the Judgment Debtor / Opposite Party No.1 and detaining him in prison till full compliance of all the directions issued by this Hon'ble Commission in its Order dated 29.5.2023.
(v) pass any or further order(s) as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Commission.
10. The judgment debtor filed respective reply in both execution petitions.
10. 1 The judgment debtor in response to execution petition bearing no 07 of 2024 stated that the instant execution application is prima facie not maintainable under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which expressly mandates that an application for enforcement or execution of an order must be filed by the person entitled to the amount. Since the decree holder is the party obligated to make payment under the order dated 29.05.2023, and not the party entitled to receive it, the present application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is a well- settled principle of law that an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree it is called upon to execute. The order dated 19.01.2024 is therefore erroneous and contrary to law, insofar as it seeks to alter the terms of the order dated 29.05.2023 by directing the decree holders to deposit the entire amount as per her own calculation, rather than the demanded amounts within the stipulated period, which lapsed on 20.07.2023. Reliance is placed upon Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa & Ors. MANU/SC/1189/2023, Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd. (2018) 7 SCC 479, and Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 123, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently affirmed that the executing court is concerned solely with execution and cannot travel beyond the decree.
10.2 The decree holder has never contested or challenged the calculations or the amounts demanded judgment debtor in its demand notices a position expressly admitted by the Complainant in paragraph 6 of Misc. Application Nos. 2082-2083/2023 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The demand notices and the amounts stated therein accordingly attained finality and cannot be impugned in the present execution proceedings. The decree holder has herself admitted, in paragraph 5 of Misc. Application Nos. 2082-2083/2023, that the time schedule prescribed by this Commission in the order dated 29.05.2023 had lapsed without compliance. The consequent cancellation of allotment on 14.09.2023, effected in strict accordance with the said order, has never been challenged or set aside by any competent court. The decree holder cannot, therefore, seek to overcome the legal effect of such cancellation through the present execution application. The decree holder does not qualify as a genuine consumer within the meaning and intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act is designed to protect bona fide end-users and not to serve as an instrument for financial investors pursuing speculative gains in the real estate market. The decree holder, being a resident of an affluent locality in Delhi with substantial financial means and represented through legal representatives, does not appear to be a genuine end-user intending to reside in the subject flat. The predominant intent appears to be the pursuit of financial returns from a speculative investment. No further proceedings under the Act ought, therefore, to be entertained in the present facts and circumstances.
10.3 The judgment debtor in response to execution petition bearing no 10 of 2024 stated that the instant execution application filed by the decree holders is prima facie not maintainable under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which expressly mandates that an application for enforcement or execution of an order must be filed by the person entitled to the amount. Since the Complainant is obligated to make the payment under the order dated 29.05.2023, and not entitled to receive it, the present application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is a well-settled principle of law that an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree it is called upon to execute. The order dated 19.01.2024 is therefore erroneous and contrary to settled precedent, insofar as the Commission seeks to alter the terms of the order dated 29.05.2023 by directing the decree holders to deposit the entire amount as per her own calculation, rather than the demanded amounts specified in the demand notices. This position is firmly supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa & Ors. MANU/SC/1189/2023, Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd. (2018) 7 SCC 479, and Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 123, all of which unequivocally affirm that the executing court is bound by the decree and cannot travel beyond it.
10.4 The decree holders has never contested or challenged the demand notices or the amounts demanded by judgment debtor, a position expressly admitted by the decree holders themselves in paragraph 6 of Misc. Application Nos. 2084-2085/2023 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the decree holders have admitted in paragraph 5 of the said application that the time schedule prescribed by the NCDRC in the order dated 29.05.2023 had already lapsed, and they failed to comply with its terms. The consequent cancellation of allotment on 14.09.2023 has neither been challenged nor set aside, and its legal effect cannot be circumvented through the present execution proceedings. It is also noteworthy that co-Complainants in connected matters Madhulekha Sawhney in CC No. 89/2017 and Tejinder Singh in CC No. 600/2016 were similarly ordered to have their allotments cancelled under the order dated 29.05.2023, and judgment debtor was fully cognizant of the consequences of continued non-payment. Finally, the decree holders does not qualify as a bona fide consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act is intended to protect genuine end-users and not to serve as an instrument for real estate investors pursuing speculative financial gains. The decree holders being residents of affluent neighbourhoods in Delhi with substantial financial means, and being represented through legal heirs, do not appear to be end-users intending to reside in the subject flat. Their primary interest appears to be financial and speculative in nature. On this ground as well, no further proceedings under the Act ought to be entertained.
I.A NO. 12033 OF 2025
11. The present application is filed by Shubham Tyagi ("Applicant No. 1") and Shivam Tyagi ("Applicant No. 2"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Applicants," seeking intervention and directions in matter EA/7/2024 titled Madhulekha Sawhney v. M/s Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. in CC/89/2017.The Applicants are bona fide purchasers of Flat No. GUL1301, 13th Floor, admeasuring 315.44 sq. mtr. (covered area) and 4,244 sq. ft. (super area), situated in Shipra Krishna Shrishti, Plot No. 15, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ("the Flat"). The Applicants booked the Flat from M/s Shipra Estate Limited and Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. ("Respondent No. 1/Developer") by executing a Memorandum of Allotment on 27.09.2023, followed by a Flat Buyer Agreement on 18.10.2023. The Applicants discharged their full financial obligations, including payment of the total consideration amount along with all ancillary charges. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 1 issued a Possession Letter dated 20.01.2024, and physical possession of the Flat was duly handed over on the same date.
11.2 However, when the Applicants approached the Ghaziabad Development Authority ("GDA") for registration of the sale deed, they were informed that the Flat stands as a "disputed property," thereby rendering registration impossible. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 appears to have illegally issued multiple allotment letters in respect of the same Flat to different persons, which has deprived the Applicants of their lawful ownership despite full payment. The Applicants, being a family of more than six members including parents and minor children, purchased the Flat for personal use and residence. The purchase was financed through a loan from Axis Bank Limited at an interest rate of 8.7% per annum, and the Applicants continue to bear substantial financial burden by way of loan instalments, costs of litigation, and harassment, without being able to secure ownership.
11.3 It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 had filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8017-8022 of 2024 titled M/s Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Tejinder Singh & Anr. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Applicants had filed Intervention Application No. I.A. 154477/2025 therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 02.09.2025, dismissed the said petition and expressly directed that third parties may file appropriate applications before this Commission, leaving their claims open to be addressed on merits. In light of the foregoing, the Applicants most respectfully pray that this Commission be pleased to allow the present application for intervention and grant such relief as may be deemed fit and just in the circumstances of the case, in order to prevent grave and irretrievable prejudice to the Applicants.
12. The decree holder filed its reply to the application and submits that she is neither privy to the transactions between the judgment debtor and the applicants, nor aware of the veracity of the documents filed with the impleadment application. Accordingly, this Reply is restricted to legal submissions only, and all factual averments in the application are denied except those borne out from the record. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, fully protects the decree holder's right to possession and registration of Flat No. GUL-1301, as recognized by this Commission vide Order dated 20.12.2023 and affirmed by the Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025. Any indulgence to the Applicants would render this settled legal principle otiose.
12.1 The Order dated 29.05.2023 entitling the decree holder to possession has attained finality, having not been challenged by the judgment debtors. All compliances by the decree holder have been completed, and this Commission has already directed handover of physical possession and completion of registry formalities vide Order dated 24.09.2025. The Applicants' prayer for registration of the flat in their favour is therefore neither maintainable nor feasible. The Applicants, being residents of the same project, were fully aware of the order dated 29.05.2023 and the Supreme Court proceedings at the time of approaching the judgment debtor for allotment of the subject flat. Their conduct reflects a calculated risk, and they cannot now be permitted to benefit from their own deliberate actions at the expense of the decree holder's established rights.
12.2 The present proceedings concern enforcement of a final order, for which the judgment debtors are already on record. The applicants are not necessary parties to these execution proceedings. The liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025 was limited solely to filing an impleadment application, and the merits and maintainability thereof were expressly left open for determination by this Commission. There is strong reason to believe the application is collusive in nature. The applicants' grievance that they were allegedly misled by the judgment debtor into paying monies for the subject flat is a dispute that must be agitated through a substantive independent proceeding. Such claims cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings, and the legal process cannot be short- circuited through impleadment.
12.3 Should this Commission be inclined to consider the applicants' alternate prayer (d), the decree holder raises no objection, subject to the following conditions: (i) vacant physical possession of Flat No. GUL-1301 is handed over to the decree holder at the earliest; (ii) the Applicants furnish a No Objection Certificate from Axis Bank, with whom the flat has been mortgaged, confirming no objection to such handover; and (iii) amounts deposited by the decree holder before this Commission are released only upon actual possession and registration of the flat in the decree holder's name.
13. The judgment debtor filed its reply to the application and submits that the present intervention application has been filed in pursuance of the Supreme Court's order dated 02.09.2025. However, it is respectfully submitted that the application is premised entirely on false, baseless, and unsupported allegations, devoid of any documentary evidence, and appears to have been filed with the ulterior motive of exerting undue pressure upon the judgment debtor no. 1 for pecuniary gain. It is further clarified that while the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the filing of an impleadment application, it granted no license to the intervener to set up a fabricated narrative, and the contents of the application are therefore liable to be rejected in their entirety.The specific claims made by the intervener including alleged visits to the Ghaziabad Development Authority, apprehensions regarding multiple allotments, financial hardship arising from a loan availed from Axis Bank, and allegations of manipulation, cheating, and fraud are categorically denied. All relevant facts, including the default committed by the decree holder in complying with the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by this Forum, were duly communicated to the intervener. It was only upon such default that the judgment debtor no. 1 entered into an agreement with the intervener regarding the flat in question. Accordingly, no allegation of fraud or multiple allotment is sustainable on the facts of this case.
13.2 The position as it stands on record is clear the judgment debtor no. 1 faces competing claims from both the decree holder and the intervener through no fault of its own. A just resolution would require that title be executed in favour of whichever party establishes a superior and compliant claim with the judgment debtor no. 1 being correspondingly obligated to refund the amount paid by the other party, exclusive of any litigation costs or interest. The judgment debtor no. 1 respectfully submits that it stands ready to comply with any directions this Court may issue in resolution of the competing claims.
14. The applicants filed rejoinder to the reply of judgment debtor no 1 and denied all the allegations.
I.A NO. 1070 OF 2026
15. The present application is filed by Anju Rani Agarwal ("Applicant No. 1") and Shruti Agarwal ("Applicant No. 2"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Applicants," seeking intervention and directions in matter EA/10/2024 titled Ranji Bhandari & Anr. V Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited & Anr. in CC/3689/2017. That the applicants are necessary and proper parties to the present execution proceedings, having acquired rights, title, and interest in Unit No. GUL-1302 ("the Unit") prior to any alleged compliance by the erstwhile allottees/decree holders. The Applicants are bona fide subsequent allottees for valuable consideration, who have lawfully stepped into the shoes of rightful owners of the Unit. That the present application is filed pursuant to the liberty expressly granted by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.09.2025 in SLP (C) Nos. 8017-8022/2024, whereby the petition was dismissed and third parties were directed to file appropriate applications before this Commission, with their claims left open to be addressed on merits.
15.1 That this Commission, vide order dated 20.12.2023 in MA No. 512/2023 in CC No. 3689/2017, granted a final extension of 30 days to the erstwhile allottees to deposit the demanded amount, which expired on 19.01.2024. The Supreme Court has itself recorded that the deposits were made between 19.01.2024 and 22.01.20 i.e., beyond the extended deadline. Consequently, the rights of the erstwhile allottees stood extinguished upon expiry of the compliance period, and the Unit became lawfully available for fresh allotment. That as per the order dated 29.05.2023, the decree holders were granted one month to clear their outstanding dues, which they failed to do despite repeated reminders dated 19.06.2023, 26.07.2023, and 29.08.2023. The judgment debtor, having extended indulgence well beyond the statutory limit under Section 148 CPC, was left with no option but to cancel the allotment vide letter dated 14.09.2023. Crucially, the decree holders have never challenged the demand letter dated 19.06.2023, nor have they sought setting aside of the Cancellation Letter dated 14.09.2023 or the fresh allotment made in favour of the Applicants. In the absence of such challenge, no right, title, or interest in the Unit can be sustained by the decree holders in law.
15.2 That the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to the facts of the present case. The allotment of the decree holders stood cancelled prior to and independent of the execution proceedings, and the fresh allotment in favour of the Applicants was made at a time when no subsisting or enforceable right existed in favour of the erstwhile allottees. The judgment debtor acted rightly and lawfully in making fresh allotment to the Applicants. That the Applicants do not seek refund or monetary compensation. They seek only recognition of their lawful and vested right to the Unit itself, as bona fide purchasers for value who acted in good faith and with due diligence at all material times. The rights of the Applicants are superior in law and deserve protection by this Commission
16. The decree holder filed its reply to the application and submits that the decree holders are not privy to the transactions between the judgment debtors and the Applicants, and accordingly, this reply is confined to legal submissions alone. All factual averments made by the applicants are denied except those borne out from the record. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, fully protects the decree holders' right to possession and registration of Flat No. GUL-1302, as affirmed by this Commission vide Order dated 20.12.2023 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025. Any indulgence granted to the applicants would render this settled legal principle otiose.
16.1 The Order dated 29.05.2023 entitling the decree holders to possession of Flat No. GUL- 1302 has attained finality, having never been challenged by the judgment debtors. All compliances by the decree holders stand completed, and this Commission has already directed handover of physical possession and completion of registry formalities vide Order dated 24.09.2025. The Applicants' prayer for registration of Flat No. GUL-1302 in their favour is therefore neither maintainable nor tenable. The applicants were fully aware of the Order dated 29.05.2023 and the subsequent Supreme Court orders when they approached the judgment debtor for re-allotment of the flat. Having taken a calculated and conscious risk, they cannot now be permitted to benefit from their own deliberate conduct by seeking to infringe upon the decree holders' vested rights. The complaint has been fully adjudicated and the execution proceedings are solely between the decree holders and the judgment debtors. The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the execution proceedings, and their impleadment would serve no legitimate purpose. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025 was limited to filing an impleadment application only, expressly leaving its merits and maintainability open for adjudication by this Commission.
16.2 The applicants have conspicuously failed to disclose the details of their transactions with the judgment debtor, both before the Supreme Court and before this Commission. Their claim of being bona fide purchasers for value is therefore doubtful. Moreover, even if any relief were to be considered, it could not be granted within these execution proceedings and would require the applicants to establish their case in a substantive proceeding through due process of law. Should this Commission be inclined to grant indulgence to the applicants, the decree holders submit that they would have no objection, provided that: (i) the applicants, judgment debtor, and GDA are directed to forthwith hand over vacant physical possession of Flat No. GUL-1302 to the decree holders; and (ii) the amounts deposited by the decree holders before this Commission are released only upon actual physical possession being taken and registration of the flat being completed before the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad.
17. The Judgment Debtor have not filed its reply to the application.
18. We have heard Sh. Kishan Rawat, Applicant in IA/12033/2025 Mr. Sharad Tyagi, Ms. K. Gayatri along with Mr. Samarth Gogia, Advocates and Applicant in IA/1017/2026 Mr.Hemant Chaudhuri, Advocate & Mr. Vasu Goyal, Advocate.In EA/7/2024 & EA/10/2024 for Judgment debtors Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Shivani Gera, Advocate with Ms. Shalini Khanna, AR. We have also perused the record.
EA/07/2024
19. The counsel for the decree holder argued that the Order dated 29.05.2023 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 89/2017, allowing the complaint filed by the decree holder, has attained finality and is binding upon all parties. The decree holder has discharged her financial obligations in full. Pursuant to her offer communicated vide email dated 28.12.2023 and in compliance with this Commission's directions dated 19.01.2024, the entire balance sale consideration for Flat No. GUL-1301 has been deposited with the Registry of this Commission. The said amount lies at the disposal of this Commission, and accordingly, possession of Flat No. GUL-1301 along with execution and registration of the conveyance deed ought to be directed forthwith in favour of the decree holder.
19.1 The plea of third-party rights has been considered and not accepted. The judgment debtor had raised the issue of alleged third-party interest in Flat No. GUL-1301 before this Commission in M.A. No. 511/2023, as well as before the Supreme Court. Neither forum has accepted the said plea as a valid defence against the decree holder's entitlement to possession. The doctrine of lis pendens, as enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, squarely applies to the present facts and has been duly recognized by this Commission vide its Order dated 20.12.2023 and by theSupreme Court vide its Order dated 02.09.2025. Any relief of ownership or possessory rights granted to the Third Parties in respect of Flat No. GUL-1301 would render the doctrine of lis pendens nugatory and would be contrary to settled law.
19.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 02.09.2025 granted only limited liberty to the Third Parties to file an impleadment application before this Hon'ble Commission; it did not examine or express any opinion on the merits of their claims. Those merits fall to be adjudicated by this Commission in light of the facts on record and the orders passed in these proceedings. The said limited liberty ought not to be construed as conferring any substantive right upon the Third Parties. It is noteworthy that the Third Parties themselves acknowledge being "hoodwinked and tricked" by the Judgment Debtor and have, by way of an alternate prayer, sought refund of the amounts paid by them. The inclusion of such an alternate prayer reflects their awareness that a claim for possession of Flat No. GUL-1301 is legally untenable. This Commission may accordingly mould the relief in favour of the Third Parties to a monetary remedy against the Judgment Debtor.
19.3 Upon possession of Flat No. GUL-1301 being handed over to the Decree Holder and the conveyance deed being duly executed and registered in her name, the Decree Holder raises no objection to the release of the amounts deposited by her in E.A. No. 7/2024, E.A. No. 8/2024, and E.A. No. 10/2024. All facts and documents propounded by the Third Parties that are contrary to the Execution Petition and the documents relied upon therein are expressly denied and disputed, the Decree Holder not having been privy to the same.
20. The counsel for the judgment debtor argued that the present Execution petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Vide order dated 29.05.2023, this Commission directed the Decree Holder to deposit the balance amount payable to the builder within one month, while granting express liberty to the builder to cancel the allotment upon failure to comply. The said order was conditional in nature, making relief of possession and execution of conveyance subject to prior compliance by the Decree Holder. In compliance thereof, Judgment Debtor No. 1 issued a demand notice dated 19.06.2023 calling upon the Decree Holder to deposit Rs.1,13,56,854/- on or before 20.07.2023. Upon failure to pay, a reminder dated 26.07.2023 and a final notice dated 29.08.2023 were issued, granting a last opportunity until 09.09.2023. The Decree Holder failed to comply despite repeated opportunities. Instead of depositing the balance amount, the Decree Holder filed a Review Application, which was dismissed on 01.08.2023, followed by Civil Appeal Nos. 5741-5742 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were likewise dismissed on 11.09.2023. At no stage did the Decree Holder challenge the demand notices or the computation of outstanding dues. Accordingly, after a lapse of over eleven weeks from the original deadline, Judgment Debtor No. 1 cancelled the allotment vide notice dated 14.09.2023, in exercise of the express liberty granted by this Hon'ble Commission, and offered refund of the cancellation amount, which the Decree Holder failed to collect.
20.1 Subsequently, this Commission vide order dated 20.12.2023 granted a further period of thirty days, expiring on 19.01.2024, to deposit the balance amount. The Decree Holder again defaulted, thereby committing a second breach and rendering the decree incapable of execution. Following lawful cancellation, a Memorandum of Agreement dated 27.09.2023 and a Builder Buyer Agreement dated 18.10.2023 were executed in favour of Mr. Shivam Tyagi and Mr. Shubham Tyagi, bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Physical possession was handed over vide possession letter dated 20.01.2024, and the purchasers are presently in lawful possession. The intervener has further availed a housing loan from a bank after due verification of title, thereby firmly establishing bona fide third-party rights.
20.2 It is settled law that execution proceedings cannot be invoked to disturb vested third- party rights created lawfully and in strict conformity with the terms of the decree. Further, the present petition is barred under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Decree Holder was not entitled to receive any amount under the decree but was obligated to deposit the balance amount, and therefore lacks locus to invoke execution proceedings. Upon the Decree Holder's failure to comply, the allotment stood cancelled by operation of the decree itself, extinguishing all substantive rights. Execution proceedings cannot be used to revive lapsed rights or to seek equitable relief contrary to the express terms of the decree.
21. The counsel for the Interveners argued that Ms. Shubham Tyagi and Mr. Shivam Tyagi, are bona fide purchasers of Flat No. GUL-1301, 13th Floor, Shipra Krishna Shrishti, Plot No. 15, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, having a covered area of 315.44 sq. mtr. and super area of 4,244 sq. ft. ("the Flat"). The Flat was originally allotted to Ms. Madhulekha Sawhney, whose allotment was cancelled on 14.09.2023. Thereafter, Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. offered the Flat for sale to the Interveners on 27.09.2023.The Interveners paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,55,00,000/- to judgment debtor by 06.12.2023, well prior to the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by this Court. In furtherance of the transaction, the Interveners secured a loan from Axis Bank against the Flat, procured the requisite stamp papers, paid the applicable fees to the Ghaziabad Development Authority ("GDA"), and had their names mutated in the records of the maintenance agency/RWA. Physical possession of the Flat was handed over to the Interveners on 20.01,2024. The existence of the present litigation came to their knowledge only when they approached GDA for registration of the sale deed, by which time the entire transaction had already been concluded.
21.1 It is pertinent to note that the decree holder failed to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29.05.2023 and 20.12.2023, and made no payment whatsoever until the expiry of the extended period on 19.01.2024. The Interveners acted throughout in good faith, having been assured by judgment debtor that the Flat was free from all encumbrances. Their rights as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, without notice of any adverse claim, are duly protected under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is a well-settled principle of law that a party who neglects to enforce its rights, despite having ample opportunity to do so, cannot be permitted to prejudice the rights of innocent third parties who have acted in good faith and to their detriment. In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Court be pleased to recognize the Interveners as bona fide purchasers lawfully in possession of the Flat, and direct judgment debtor to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Interveners.
EA/10/2024
22. The counsel for the Interveners argued that the decree holders failed to deposit even the admitted amount of dues while preferring statutory appeals or miscellaneous applications. In blatant violation of the Order dated 20.12.2023, which directed payment of the "demanded amount" within one month, the decree holders, vide their mail dated 28.12.2023, unilaterally offered to pay only the amount as per their own calculations, thereby flouting the express terms of the said Order. Upon the decree holders' failure to comply with the Order dated 20.12.2023, their allotment was cancelled and their rights were forfeited on 20.01.2024, consequent to which valuable rights accrued in favour of the Applicant. Since the Applicant is paying a consideration manifold higher than the amount offered by the decree-holders, any prejudice to the latter can be adequately addressed by refunding their deposited amount along with interest at an appropriate rate, to be paid out of the sale consideration received from the Applicant. Accordingly, both on principles of equity and on a balance of convenience, the transfer of the flat in question in favour of the Applicant is warranted.
22.1 It is further submitted that although vide Order dated 19.01.2024, the decree-holders were permitted to deposit the payable amount with the Registry of this Commission, the time period of one month as originally granted under the Order dated 20.12.2023 was never extended. The decree-holders were therefore required to deposit the amount on or before 20.01.2024. Significantly, the decree holders neither sought enlargement of the said time nor applied for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, the deposit made by the decree holders on 22.01.2024 cannot, by any yardstick, be treated as due compliance with the Order dated 20.12.2023.
23. The counsel for the decree holders argued that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, fully protects the decree holders' rights over Flat No. GUL-1302, as affirmed by this Commission vide Order dated 20.12.2023 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025. The Order dated 29.05.2023 entitling the decree holders to possession has attained finality, never having been challenged by the judgment debtors. All compliances on the part of the decree holders stand completed, and this Commission has already directed handover of physical possession and completion of registry formalities vide Order dated 24.09.2025. In these circumstances, the applicants' prayer for registration of the flat in their favour is neither maintainable nor tenable. The applicants were fully aware of the subsisting orders when they approached the judgment debtor for re-allotment of the flat. Having taken a calculated and conscious risk, they cannot now be permitted to benefit from their own deliberate conduct to the prejudice of the decree holders' vested rights. It is further submitted that the applicants have conspicuously failed to disclose the particulars of their transactions, casting serious doubt on their claim of being bona fide purchasers for value.
23.1 The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the execution proceedings, which lie solely between the decree holders and the judgment debtors. The liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.09.2025 was expressly limited to filing an impleadment application, leaving its merits and maintainability open for adjudication by this Commission. Any relief, if at all considered, cannot be granted within these proceedings and would require the applicants to establish their claim through an independent substantive proceeding. Without prejudice to the foregoing, should this Commission be inclined to grant any indulgence to the applicants, the decree holders submit that they have no objection, provided that: (i) the applicants, the judgment debtor, and GDA are directed to forthwith hand over vacant physical possession of Flat No. GUL-1302 to the decree holders; and (ii) the amounts deposited by the decree holders before this Commission are released only upon actual physical possession being taken and registration of the flat being completed before the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad.
24. It is reflecting from record that the present Execution Applications arise from final consumer complaints passed by this Commission in CC/89/2017 and CC/3689/2017 vide judgment dated 29.05.2023, in pursuance whereof the decree holders have approached this Commission under Section 25(3) read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") for enforcement of the said order. Interlocutory Applications have also been filed by third-party interveners who claim independent title to the subject flats, namely, Flat No. GUL-1301 (in EA/07/2024) and Flat No. GUL-1302 (in EA/10/2024), situated in Project Shipra Krishna Shrishti, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The said interveners were permitted by the Supreme Court of India vide Order dated 02.09.2025 to file appropriate applications before this Commission, with their claims being left open for adjudication on merits.
25. Having perused the records, the pleadings of the Decree Holders ,the Judgment Debtors (JDs), and the Interveners, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for all parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the present execution proceedings and the accompanying intervention applications have the following core issues:
· Issue I: Whether the present execution petitions are maintainable under Section 25(3) read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether this Executing Commission has travelled beyond the decree?
· Issue II: Whether the Judgment Debtor validly cancelled the allotments of the Decree Holders on 14.09.2023, and whether the subsequent deposit of the balance consideration by the Decree Holders constitutes lawful compliance with this Commission's directions?
· Issue III: Whether the Interveners are protected as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, or whether their rights are vitiated by the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882)?
· Issue IV: What equitable and legal reliefs are the respective parties entitled to?
26. ISSUE I: Maintainability and Scope of the Executing Court 26.1 The Judgment Debtor has argued that the execution petitions are barred under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, contending that an application for enforcement must be filed by a "person entitled to the amount". The Judgment Debtor submits that since the Decree Holders are obligated to make payment under the order dated 29.05.2023, rather than receiving it, they lack the locus to invoke execution proceedings.
26.2 We find this interpretation to be hyper-technical and legally flawed. The final judgment dated 29.05.2023 imposes reciprocal obligations the Decree Holders are supposed to deposit the balance amount, and upon such deposit, the Judgment Debtor is directed to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the flats complete in all respects. The Decree Holders are invoking Section 25(3) read with Section 27 of the Act to enforce their substantive right to receive possession and title, which the Judgment Debtor has wilfully withheld. The argument that the Decree Holders are not "entitled to the amount" ignores the hybrid nature of the decree, which primarily awards specific performance (possession) upon the discharge of a reciprocal financial duty.
26.3 The Judgment Debtor further relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa & Ors. (2023), Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd. (2018), and Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors. (2023) to argue that an executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree it is called upon to execute. It is argued that the order dated 19.01.2024, which allowed the Decree Holders to deposit the amount with the Registry based on their own calculations, fundamentally altered the decree.
26.4 The legal proposition that an executing court cannot travel beyond the decree is well- settled and undisputed. However, the application of this principle to the present facts by the Judgment Debtor is misplaced. The original timeline for payment was enlarged by this Commission in its substantive capacity vide Order dated 20.12.2023 in MA No. 511/2023 and MA No. 512/2023, extending the time by 30 days. When the Decree Holders offered the payment on 28.12.2023 (well within the extended 30-day period), the Judgment Debtor unlawfully refused to accept it via email dated 29.12.2023, advising the Decree Holders to pursue statutory remedies instead. The subsequent Order dated 19.01.2024 permitting the deposit of funds with the Registry of this Commission was a procedural mechanism to facilitate the execution of the existing decree in the face of the Judgment Debtor's refusal to accept the validly tendered payment. This does not amount to "going beyond the decree"; rather, it is the Executing Court exercising its inherent powers to ensure the decree is not rendered a dead letter by a defiant party. Issue I is decided against the Judgment Debtor.
27. ISSUE II: Validity of Cancellation and Compliance by Decree Holders 27.1The Judgment Debtor asserts that the original one-month compliance period granted vide Order dated 29.05.2023 lapsed, and after issuing demand notices (19.06.2023, 26.07.2023, 29.08.2023) which went unheeded, the allotment was validly cancelled on 14.09.2023.We have examined the timeline of events holistically. Against the Order dated 29.05.2023, Review Applications were preferred and subsequently dismissed on 01.08.2023. Thereafter, Civil Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed on 11.09.2023. Subsequently, Miscellaneous Applications seeking an extension of time were filed before the Supreme Court, which were withdrawn on 03.10.2023 with express liberty to approach this Commission. The purported cancellation letter dated 14.09.2023 was issued merely three days after the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals on 11.09.2023, and while the statutory window to seek an extension or file further applications was still alive. Furthermore, this Commission's Order dated 20.12.2023, which extended the time for payment by 30 days, retroactively cured any procedural default in timelines. By refusing the Decree Holders' valid tender of payment on 28.12.2023, the Judgment Debtor actively frustrated the decree. Therefore, the cancellation dated 14.09.2023 is held to be legally untenable, premature, and superseded by the subsequent extension granted by this Commission. The Decree Holders have fully complied with their obligations by depositing the balance consideration with the Registry of this Commission.
ISSUE III: Rights of Interveners and Doctrine of Lis Pendens
28. The Interveners, Shubhaam Tyagi and Shivam Tyagi (EA/07/2024) and Anju Rani Agarwal and Shruti Agarwal (EA/10/2024), stake their claim on the premise that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. They argue that they executed Agreements, paid the full consideration, received physical possession, and were unaware of the ongoing litigation until the Ghaziabad Development Authority halted the registry. 28.1 The rights of the Interveners must be tested on the anvil of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens. The principle states that during the pendency of any suit or proceeding in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order which may be made therein. The chronology exposes the malafide of the Judgment Debtor. The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals on 11.09.2023. The Judgment Debtor hastily issued a cancellation letter on 14.09.2023 and immediately executed a Memorandum of Allotment with the Interveners. During this exact period, Miscellaneous Applications seeking an extension of time were actively pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of on 03.10.2023.The creation of third-party rights was done clandestinely while the lis (litigation) was very much alive and pending before the Apex Court and subsequently before this Commission. The doctrine of lis pendens fully protects the Decree Holders' right to possession and registration of the flats. A party making a transfer during the pendency of litigation does so at their own peril, and the transferee (the Interveners) steps into the shoes of the transferor, bound by the final outcome of the litigation. While we sympathize with the Interveners who appear to have been "hoodwinked and tricked" by the Judgment Debtor, their claim to specific performance (registration of the flat) cannot defeat the prior, vested, and crystallized decree operating in favor of the Decree Holders. The Interveners' rights are subservient to the Decree Holders' rights.
ISSUE IV: Final Relief and Equities
29. The Judgment Debtor has played fast and loose with the legal process. By illegally creating third-party rights while the dispute was sub-judice, receiving massive sale considerations from the Interveners in EA/07/2024, and concurrently attempting to extinguish the rights of the decree holders, the Judgment Debtor has committed grave deficiency in service and Contempt of this Commission's directions. The decree holders, having complied with the Order dated 20.12.2023 by tendering payment and subsequently depositing it with the Registry, are entitled to the absolute and unencumbered possession and title of their respective flats. The Interveners, while failing in their primary prayer to retain the flats due to the statutory bar of lis pendens, must be protected against the deceitful practices of the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Debtor cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich itself by retaining the sale consideration extracted from the Interveners. The Interveners have prayed in the alternative for a refund in EA/07/2024, which is justified.
30. In light of the comprehensive factual analysis and legal reasoning elucidated above, this Commission issues the following mandatory directions:
A. In respect of the Decree Holders (Madhulekha Sawhney & Ranji Bhandari):
Execution Petition No. 07 of 2024 and Execution Petition No. 10 of 2024 are hereby ALLOWED. The Judgment Debtor (Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited) are directed to execute the absolute Conveyance Deed/Sub-Lease Deed and hand over vacant, peaceful, and unconditional physical possession of Flat No. 'Gulmohar- 1301' and Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1302' to the respective Decree Holders within four (4) weeks from the date of this Order. The Registry of this Commission is directed to release the balance sale consideration, presently deposited by the decree holders, in favor of the Judgment Debtor only upon the successful execution and registration of the Conveyance Deeds and the handover of physical possession as certified by the decree holders.
B. In respect of the Interveners (Shubhaam Tyagi & Shivam Tyagi / Anju Rani Agarwal & Shruti Agarwal): The primary prayer of the Interveners seeking direction for the registration of the sale deeds in their favor in respect of Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1301' and Flat No. 'Gulmohar-1302' stands DISMISSED, being hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Interveners are directed to forthwith vacate and hand over the physical possession of the said flats (if occupied) to the Judgment Debtor within two (2) weeks, to enable the Judgment Debtor to comply with direction above. To balance the equities and address the blatant fraud perpetuated upon the Interveners, the judgment debtor is directed to REFUND the entire sale consideration received from the Interveners to the Applicants in IA/12033/2025, and the corresponding amount in IA/1017/2026.The said refund shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual realization, serving as compensation for the mental agony, financial hardship (including bank loan liabilities ), and litigation costs forced upon them by the Judgment Debtor. This refund must be completed within six (6) weeks from the date of this Order.
31. The Execution Petitions and all pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of in the above terms. No separate order as to costs.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER SUKHBIR SINGH/Court-3/02