Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Nitishree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Nitish Mittal on 17 September, 2021
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
CA 5759/2021
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 5759 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No 5511 of 2020)
Nitishree Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Appellant(s)
Versus
Nitish Mittal Respondent(s)
ORDER
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 4 December 2019. 3 The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs 18,21,428 deposited by the respondent together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. There was a delay of 158 days in filing the revision before the NCDRC. The NCDRC by its impugned order declined to condone the delay.
4 When the proceedings came up before this Court on 1 June 2020, the following order was passed:
“ In response to a suggestion of the Court, the learned counsel Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly states that without Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.09.21 16:54:06 IST Reason: CA 5759/2021 2 prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in any other case, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the principal amount which is due and payable to the respondent under the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with interest computed at the rate of twelve per cent per annum within a period of twelve weeks from today.
Recording the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we direct that proof of payment to the respondent on the above basis shall be filed in the Registry of this Court. Upon the filing of proof, notice shall issue to the respondent, returnable within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
In order to enable the petitioner to effect the compliance, there shall be a stay of the enforcement of the impugned judgment and order of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission till the next listing. The stay shall stand automatically vacated and the Special Leave Petition shall stand dismissed in the event the petitioner does not file proof of payment within a period of twelve weeks in terms of the above directions.”
5 Subsequently, on 28 August 2020, the following order was passed:
“1 Mr Pravin Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks a further extension of twelve weeks to pay the balance amount due and payable under the earlier order of this court dated 1 June 2020. An application seeking extension of time to pay the balance has been filed on the ground that the intervening outbreak of Covid-19 has seriously affected the financial position of the petitioner. Learned Counsel states that an amount of Rs 10 lakhs has been paid to the respondent after the previous order.
2 Having regard to the prevailing situation, we extend time for the payment of the balance in terms of the previous order dated 1 June 2020 until 30 November 2020 by way of a last and final opportunity. No further extension shall be granted. In the event that the petitioner fails to file proof of deposit in the Registry on or before the 30 November 2020 , the Special Leave Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.CA 5759/2021 3
3 Notice shall issue only conditional on the petitioner filing proof of payment by 30 November 2020, in which event, notice shall be returnable in six weeks thereafter.”
6 We have heard Mr Pravin Mahajan, counsel for the appellant and Mr Mohit Paul, counsel for the respondent.
7 Admittedly, the principal amount has been paid. Mr Pravin Mahajan, counsel states that interest has been paid together with principal at the rate of 12% per annum to the respondent in terms of the order dated 1 June 2020. We are of the view that the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum would in the facts and circumstances of the present case meets the ends of justice.
8 Since the orders of this Court have been complied with, the judgment of the SCDRC shall stand substituted in terms of the above directions. 9 The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
….....…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ..…....…........……………….…........J. [B V Nagarathna] New Delhi;
September 17, 2021
CKB
CA 5759/2021
4
ITEM NO.40 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5511/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2019 in RP No.2555/2019 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) NITISHREE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS NITISH MITTAL Respondent(s) Date : 17-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pravin Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR
Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Varma, Adv.
Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)