At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. C. VISWANATH
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
For the Appellant: Ilesh Shukla, Advocate for IRP. For the Respondents: -------
1. Heard Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.07.2021 by which non-bailable warrants have been issued against the judgment debtor in Execution Application No.582 of 2018 arising out of complaint case No.780 of 2017 decided on 24.07.2018. It may be mentioned that in order to execute the final orders the proceedings under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been initiated. Section 27 provides for penalties which may be one month to three years imprisonment or with fine not less than Rs.2000/- but may extend to Rs.10,000/-and the appeal against the orders under Section 27 of the Act has been provided under Section 27A of the Act. In the present case, by the impugned order, neither the order of imprisonment has been passed nor, the order directing to pay penalty has been passed as such the appeal is not maintainable, under Section 27A of the Act. The order issuing non-bailable warrants against the judgment debtor, is merely on interlocutory order.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment debtor in the present case is Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. registered office at B-43, First Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 is at present going through proceedings of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which has been initiated before National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi i.e. Claim Petition No.IB-85(ND)/2021 and Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional has been appointed by order dated 12.04.2021. This fact has been brought to the notice of State Commission, but without taking any notice of this fact non-bailaible warrants has been issued against all the judgment debtor including the company, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.
4. It is not denied that the process has been issued against the Directors of the Company also, who were opposite parties in the complaint otherwise also the Directors are personally liable for the company, therefore, the non-bailable warrant c
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
an very well be issued against the Director. If any final order is passed against the company, then it can be challenged under Section 27A of the Act. ORDER The present appeal is not maintainable and it is dismissed.