Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)
Sushil Siwach vs Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., on 23 June, 2014 cites

Sushil Siwach vs Shalimar Estates(P) Ltd. Corp on 13 December, 2012

21.   There is another aspect of the case. As stated above, when Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2012, titled as Sushil Siwach Vs. Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., was instituted by the complainant, on 07.08.2012, which was accepted vide order dated 13.12.2012, feeling aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor/ Opposite Party, filed First Appeal No.58 of 2013, titled as Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sushil Siwach, which was admitted. Vide order dated 26.02.2013, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the aforesaid appeal, subject to deposit of the entire decreetal amount, alongwith interest, with it, within four weeks, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 13.12.2012. It was further made clear, that, in case, the amount was not deposited, within the stipulated period, the stay granted shall stand vacated automatically. Thereafter, an application for extension of time, was filed, by the appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which, vide order dated 31.05.2013, extended the same (time), for deposit of amount, till 15.06.2013. Again, vide order dated 12.07.2013, by way of final opportunity, one week`s time was allowed to the appellant/Judgment Debtor, to deposit the decreetal amount, but it was made clear that no further extension shall be permitted, in the case, and stay shall automatically stand vacated. Again the appellant/Judgment Debtor, moved I.A. 4730 of 2013, in First Appeal No.58 of 2013, for extension of time, which was declined by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 02.08.2013. The Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, filed Special Leave Petition, in the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, against the order dated 02.08.2013, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide which it declined the extension of time, for deposit of the amount aforesaid. However, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2013. Once, the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party availed of its remedy, upto the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, against the order dated 02.08.2013, vide which extension of time, was not granted, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, for deposit of the amount, now it did not lie, in its mouth, to say that the order dated 13.12.2012, passed in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.42 of 2012, by this Commission, during the pendency of appeal, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had not attained finality, and, as such, the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act, was not maintainable. On this ground too, the submission of the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Maytas Properties Limited, Rep. By Its ... vs A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 7 February, 2013

22.   The Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, however, placed reliance on Maytas Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mr. Mamidi Naveen and Mrs. MamidiAnantha Lakshmi Saritha, AIR 2013 AP 93, decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, to contend that, on account of pendency of an appeal, in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, though the stay granted, therein, stood vacated, the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act, was not maintainable. No doubt, in Maytas`s case (supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, held that if an appeal against the order of the Consumer Fora, is pending in the Higher Fora, irrespective of the fact, whether stay had not been granted therein, the order could not be executed, by filing the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act. It may be stated here, that in Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad`s case (supra), a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad held that the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act, for the enforcement of the order, passed by the Consumer Fora, even if, an appeal against the same, was pending, but no stay had been granted, was maintainable. We are of the considered opinion, that in view of the divergent principle of law, laid down, by the Division Benches of two High Courts, on the same point, it is for the Consumer Fora, to follow the one, which appeared to it, to be more reasonable and correct. Why the Decree Holder be deprived of reaping the fruit of decree, which was rendered in his favour, especially when there is no stay, against the same, though an appeal is pending. Why the Decree Holder should be made to wait, for a long number of years, to enforce the order against which, no stay was operative. If the Decree Holder is deprived of the benefit of decision, rendered in his favour, merely on the ground that an appeal against the same is pending, though no stay is operative, against the same, the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, providing for the speedy redressal of the grievances of the consumers, shall stand defeated. If ultimately, the appeal is accepted, the Judgment Debtor, shall have the remedy of resorting to the restitution proceedings. In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad`s case (supra), is required to be followed, in the instant case, in view of its peculiar facts and circumstances.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

26.   Not only this, as stated above, earlier Execution Application No.08 of 2013, was filed by the complainant/Decree Holder, for compliance of the order dated 13.12.2012, passed by this Commission, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.42 of 2012, during the pendency whereof, two Demand Drafts bearing Nos.030537 and 133392, both dated 20.11.2013, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, and Rs.3 lacs, respectively, were handed over to the Counsel for the Decree Holder/complainant, by the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, and the same were accepted by him. An undertaking was given by the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, that the Judgment Debtor shall pay the remaining amount, within four months. On the basis of such undertaking, the Execution Application was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh one, in case, the same (undertaking) was not adhered to. This undertaking was not adhered to, by the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, as a result whereof, the instant Execution Application, was filed by the Decree Holder/complainant. No doubt, during the pendency of the instant Execution Application, four post dated cheques, referred to above, were offered, by the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, to the Counsel for the Decree Holder/complainant, yet he refused to accept the same, keeping in view the previous conduct of the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, as he failed to comply with the undertaking, aforesaid, given by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 Next