State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Royal Enclave vs Munikrishna.G on 9 March, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Revision Petition No. RP/153/2019 ( Date of Filing : 09 Dec 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/11/2019 in Case No. EP/113/2016 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Royal Enclave No.604, Vaishnavi Paradise, Sangam circle, 8th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041 Rep.by its Parter V.Bhaskar Reddy Karnataka 2. V.Bhaskar Reddy Managing Partner & Authorised Signatory, M/s Royal Enclave, Presidency Group, No.604, Vaishnavi Paradise, Sangam circle, 8th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041 Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Munikrishna.G S/o Gangaiah, Aged about 42 years, R/a No.43/2, 2nd cross, Ramachandra Agrahara, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru-560018 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 09 Mar 2022 Final Order / Judgement dtd.09.03.2022 O R D E R
BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER This petition is filed U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986 by Jdr to set aside the order dtd.04.11.2017 passed in EP/113/2016 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
We examined the impugned order and grounds of revision.
EP-113/2016 came to be filed by Dhr U/s.27 of CPA to execute the award passed in CC/452/2016. This was admitted on 02.08.2016. On 02.08.2016 District Forum taken cognizance of offence alleged under the provisions of CPA 1986 and on 06.10.2016 an application in the form of complaint filed U/s.200 Cr.PC, wherein District Forum held an enquiry, found satisfied to proceed U/s.27 of CPA and issued notice against Jdr, who has been represented by an advocate on 16.12.2016. And at such stage of the matter ordered to issue NBW against Jdr and in the mean time on 04.11.2017 Jdr filed IA U/o 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec.151 CPC to implead Mr.T.Ripunjaya Reddy as one of the Jdr in this case. The DF having been heard, dismissed the said IA and also dismissed the IA filed U/o 1 Rule 9 R/w Sec.151 CPC, imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to Complainant/Dhr. It is these two orders are impugned in this Revision Petition contending that, he has settled advances to the extent more than Rs.5 crores in favour of 168 customers by way arrangement of alternate sites - during 2012 (for 79 customers), in 2013 (for 74 customers), in 2014 (for 6 customers), 2016 (for 9 customers). And such settlement could have been possible because he was not in custody.
Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy was in judicial custody for almost one year and again was sent to judicial custody. He is the only one bearing the brunt of the execution proceedings, while the other partners are escaping from their liabilities. It is therefore, for the reasons stated in the IAs before District Forum in execution proceedings, sought for direction to Dhr to implead other partners of the partnership firm restricting the petitioner V.Bhaskar Reddy to his share of 50% in the partnership firm as liable to pay to the Dhr.
Whether the above contentions are examined by the District Forum, keeping in mind the principles of legal laws ? has to be examined by this commission. In this regard we are of the view that the Dhr being dominant litus has to choose who are his Jdrs, since the Jdrs impleaded, none other OPs in CC/452/2016. As such, on the principles of dominant litigant impleaded JDrs now on record. In other words he has to choose who are his opponents. It is therefore we are of the view it was rightly examined by the District Forum before passing the impugned orders and the commission did not find any legal grounds to interfere in the said order. It is hereby observed inter-se dispute between partners is nothing to do with the executing award passed by the District Forum in CC/452/2016.
In the above such view of the matter, Commission could not find any reasons to revise the impugned orders for the grounds set out in Revision Petition. Accordingly Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER