National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ravi Garg vs Sukhminder Singh & Anr. on 18 May, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 56 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 04/02/2022 in Complaint No. 133/2020 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. RAVI GARG EX. DIRECTOR OF M/S SANSKRITI GOLDEN OAK REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., FLAT NO. 405, TOWER NO.18, ROYAL ESTATE, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI - 140603 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SUKHMINDER SINGH & ANR. H. NO. 716, KRISHNA NAGAR AKALSAR ROAD, NEAR GOVERNMNET PRIMARY SCHOOL, MOGA, PUNJAB 2. M/S SANSKRIT GOLDEN OAK REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. FLAT NO. 405, TOWER NO. 18, ROYAL ESTATE, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 May 2022 ORDER JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present Appeal Execution has been filed challenging the order dated 04.02.2022 in Execution Application No. EA No.133 of 2020 in Complaint Case No. CC 463 of 2018 ( hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'). It is contended by the Appellant that present Appeal has been filed by the director of the judgment debtor Company i.e. M/s Sanskriti Golden Oak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a decree had been passed against the Judgment Debtor Company in Complaint No. CC No. 463 of 2018. An Execution Application EA No.133 of 2020 had been filed by the Decree Holder / complainant and it was during the execution that impugned order had been passed.
3. It is contended by the Appellant that Decree Holder had paid a sum of Rs. 19,66,220/- to the Company and the Company failed to deliver the possession of the unit booked in the year 2014. An order of refund was passed by the State Commission in the complaint and the Execution Application was filed when the Company failed to make the payment. It is contended that Appellant in order to show his bonafide before the State Commission had submitted that Appellant is willing to pay sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- to the Decree Holder and that he shall pay a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- by demand draft or RTGS on the same day and the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- will be paid by way of post dated cheque bearing no. 189233 dated 04.09.2023. This payment was to be made by the Appellant out of the funds of the Judgment Debtor Company. The proposal was accepted by the Decree Holder and accordingly Appellant had paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- through RTGS and handed over the post dated cheques. Vide order dated 05.08.2021, the State Commission was pleased to grant interim bail to the Appellant from 05.08.2021 to 16.09.2021 on the conditions mentioned in the order. Accordingly on 14.09.2021, the Appellant submitted a proposal for making the remaining payment and the calculation sheet by filing MA No. 605 of 2021 in the said Execution Application. As per this proposal, the Judgment Debtor had agreed to make the balance sum in 24 instalments @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month starting from 16.10.2021 till 16.08.2023 and the balance amount with up-dated interest was to be paid on 16.09.2023. Another application was also filed by the Appellant bearing MA No. 606 of 2021 for extension of time to pay the balance amount. It is contended that Appellant's source of income to pay the balance money is only from the Judgment Debtor Company and on the basis of income derived from the Company, the Appellant had submitted the payment plan to the State Commission. A Moratorium had been declared by NCLT against the Company and the Appellant is no more in the management of the affairs of the Company and, therefore, under these circumstances, he is not in a position to pay the balance sum to the complainant. It is submitted that under these circumstances Execution Proceedings against the Appellant ought to have been stayed by the State Commission as the proceedings against the Judgment Debtor Company stood stayed and the Appellant should not be penalized because of his incapacity to pay the balance amount.
4. On these contentions, the present Appeal has been filed against the impugned order.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at length and have gone through the record. We have perused the impugned order. As per the impugned order, it is apparent that in view of the order of NCLT against the Judgment Debtor Company, the proceedings against the Judgment Debtor Company were stayed till further orders but the State Commission observed that proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue against Sh. Ravi Garg, Judgment Debtor No.2. This order is perfectly in consonance with the order of the Three Members Bench of this Commission in the case of Lotus Panache Welfare Association Vs M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors passed in Execution Application No. 25 of 2018 in CC No. 120 of 2015 dated 06.09.2019. In this case, this Commission answered the following reference:
"(i) Whether the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted or can continue against a corporate debtor, in respect of whom a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been declared by the Adjudicating Authority, and / or the persons incharge of and responsible to the Corporate Debtor for the conduct of its business."
and has held as under:
"15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered as follows:
"(i) The proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted and continued against a corporate debtor, which has failed or omitted to comply with an order passed by a Consumer Forum and in respect of whom a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is declared by the Adjudicating Authority;
(ii) The proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted and continued against the persons incharge of and responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business as well as against a person referred in Para (13) hereinabove, even after a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is declared by the Adjudicating Authority against the corporate debtor."
6. In view of the above, we found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present Appeal Execution has no merit and same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SUBHASH CHANDRA MEMBER