Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S.Balachandran vs M/S Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd. on 26 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6690-6692/2009
S.BALACHANDRAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES LTD. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned senior counsel for the respondent and perused the appeals papers.
At the outset, we note that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short `NCDRC’) at the first instance while disposing of the appeals filed by both the parties, had clubbed the same and through the common order dated 10.09.2007 having approved the order passed by the State Commission had recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, who appeared before the NCDRC and had indicated that out of the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- which had been deposited, being 50% of the amount of Rs.13,66,892/- which was ordered by the State Commission, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- be released to the appellant herein and remaining Rs.2,50,000/- be released to the respondent herein.
The said order as already indicated was passed on recording the submission Signature Not Verified of the learned counsel who had appeared for the Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2023.04.28 appellant.
18:04:41 IST Reason: It is in that light the appellant herein had thereafter filed a miscellaneous application for review of the 1 C.A NOS.6690-6692/2009 said order and had appeared `in-person’ before the NCDRC. The NCDRC through its order dated 14.08.2018 has rejected the application/review since the earlier order was passed on the submission of the learned counsel and no action has been taken against the counsel.
The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the NCDRC in the appeals, as also the order dated 14.08.2008 are not justified and they are liable to be set aside.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent would contend that the NCDRC in fact, had kept in view that the judgment passed against the respondent herein was an ex-parte judgment and in any event the direction issued by the State Commission to hand over possession of the flat had already been complied. In view of the fact that possession of the flat had already been conveyed in order to put an end to the litigation had accepted the submission that the amount if disbursed in the manner as indicated in the order, the same would be in the interest of justice and therefore, the order does not call for interference. Having taken note of these aspects and also having taken into consideration that the order dated 21.07.2005 passed by the State Commission was in the absence of the respondent herein, even if the NCDRC were to consider the matter on its merits to re-appreciate the evidence available on record, an opportunity 2 C.A NOS.6690-6692/2009 was required to be granted to the respondent, more particularly when both parties had assailed it. In such event the appropriate course would have been to remit the matter to the State Commission.
Keeping this aspect in view, we have adverted to the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in O.P. No. 63 of 2012 by the State Commission. In that regard, we note that the State Commission, even in the absence of the respondent herein, has adverted to the contentions put forth on behalf of the appellant in detail and while rejecting the claim towards the difference in rent has taken into consideration the case put forth by the appellant and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion. Therefore, the order is sustainable.
If that be the position, we are of the opinion that in the instant appeals before the NCDRC ultimately the amount of compensation which had been determined was the only question since as on the date the appeals were disposed by the NCDRC, the possession of the flat had already been conveyed. In that circumstance, at that juncture, as against the total amount of Rs. 13,66,892/-, the deposit of 50% had been made. In that light the NCDRC had accepted the suggestion put forth by the counsel and had indicated the disbursement of the available amount in deposit as otherwise the order of the State Commission was required to be examined at the instance of the respondent. In that circumstance, though we are of the opinion that no serious error has been committed, in the matter of the present nature, 3 C.A NOS.6690-6692/2009 the enrire amount in deposit with the accrued interest at least ought to have been disbursed in favour of the appellant if not the amount as ordered by the State Commission. If this aspect is kept in view, even at this stage, we find it appropriate that entire deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- which was available before the State Commission ought to have been directed to be released to the appellant so as to put an end to the litigation between the parties.
Hence, we direct that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- if has not been received by the appellant, shall now be disbursed to the appellant with accrued interest thereon. If a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent, the same shall be paid to the appellant.
It is made clear that if the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has not been withdrawn by the respondent and is available in deposit, the entire amount with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the appellant.
In terms of the above, appeals stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………J. [A.S. BOPANNA] ….……………………………………….J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 26, 2023
4
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.12 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
Civil Appeal Nos. 6690-6692/2009
S.BALACHANDRAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES LTD. Respondent(s)
(FOR ON IA 110373/2011 )
Date : 26-04-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR Mr. Shaffi Mather, Adv.
Ms. Jebi Mather, Adv.
Mr. Jitender Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals stand disposed of in terms of signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5