Chandigarh

StateCommission

AEA/2/2024

HARGURJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GUPTA

14 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

==================

Appeal Execution No.	:	AEA/2/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	27/02/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	14/10/2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Hargurjit Singh son of Sh. Sohan Singh Parmar, resident of H.No.2040, Ground Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

2.     Mrs. Raman Parmar wife of Sh. Hargurjit Singh, resident of H.No.2040, Ground Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

…. Appellants

 

Vs.

 

1.     Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Chairman – Hardayal Singh Mann.

 

2.     Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Managing Director – Sumesh Chawla.

 

3.     Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Deputy General Manager – Sandeep Bhasker.

 

4.     Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Manager.

 

5.     Greenfield Sites Management Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

6.     Greenfield Sites Management Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Sales & Marketing Executive – Sukhchain Singh.

 

7.     Greenfield Sites Management Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Manager.

 

8.     Tejinder Pal Setia, Managing Director/ Director,  Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., SCO 249, Basement, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

…. Respondents

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

:

Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for Appellants. Sh. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 already ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2024.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present Appeal Execution under Section  27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants challenging the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), disposed off the Execution Application bearing No. EA/30/2018 titled as “Hargurjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”, in the following terms: -

 

“4]    It is important to mention over here that in view of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in I.A No. 529/2023 and CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019 titled as ‘Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.’ and order dated 06.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5533-5534 of 2023 titled ‘Tejinder Pal Setia Vs. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.’, the Complainant(s) should approach the Interim Resolution Professional in respect of her/his claim made in the present execution, if not earlier lodged and shall have liberty to file fresh one, if legally entitled to do so.  

 

        Accordingly, the present execution application stands disposed off in above terms with liberty as aforesaid.

 

5]      The pending application(s), if any, stands disposed off accordingly.”

 

2.         The backdrop of the case is that the decree dated 16.05.2017 was passed by the Ld. District Commission and following relief was granted:-

“16.  In view of the above discussion, the present Complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under: -

 

i.      to pay the buy back amount of Rs.7.50 lac to the Complainant.

 

ii.     To pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for mental harassment and deficiency in service.

 

iii.     To pay costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant.

 

        This order be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. (i) to (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.” 

 

3.         To comply with this decree, the Decree Holders/ Complainants (Appellants herein) moved an execution application and in that execution application the order dated 08.12.2023, which is impugned before us, as mentioned above, was passed.

 

4.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and also carefully perused the record with their able assistance.

 

5.         Learned Counsel for the Appellants, inter alia, submits that the Ld. District Commission has illegally disposed of the Execution Application vide impugned order dated 08.12.2023 ignoring the laid down in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) Vs. M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2024(1) CPJ 38 and  Anjali Rathi & Ors. Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2021 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2176.  He further submitted that the appointment of the interim resolution professional under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not have any bearing on the criminal proceedings which were pending before the Ld. District Commission. Thus, the Ld. District Commission had wrongly disposed off the execution application filed by the Appellants, in asmuch as the present Respondents are not entitled for any protection and the present proceedings deserve to be continued against them in relation of their liability which fact has totally been overlooked by the Ld. District Commission.    A prayer has therefore been made for setting-aside/ modifying the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 and for punishing the Respondents for non-compliance of the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Commission.

 

6.         The argument, though attractive at first blush, pales into insignificance in view of the peculiar facts obtaining here. Careful perusal of record reveals that the Appellants are relying upon the law laid down in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) (supra) by submitting that the execution application was not only against the Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., but also against its Directors. However, the same would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as during the course of proceedings, a conceded position which emerged is that the Appellants have already lodged their claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP), which has been approved and now, the proceedings are pending before the Adjudicating Autority, awaiting its approval under Section 31(1) of the IBC. In this backdrop, we may note here that if the Appellants have any objections to the resolution plan, they are to submit them before the Adjudicating Authority. Further, In Anjali Rathi & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the Appellants, claims were also lodged before the IRP and the Hon’ble Apex Court afforded the Petitioners therein liberty to submit their claims before the Adjudicating Authority and to take recourse to the remedies which are available in law after the decision of the Adjudicating Authority on the approval application under Section 31(1) and subject to the consequence thereafter. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances in view of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in I.A No. 529/2023 and CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019 titled as ‘Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.’ and order dated 06.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5533-5534 of 2023 titled ‘Tejinder Pal Setia Vs. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.’, the Ld. District Commission rightly observed that the Appellants/Complainants should approach the IRP in respect of their claim made in the present execution, if not earlier lodged and shall have liberty to file fresh one, if legally entitled to do so.  To our mind, there is no illegality & perversity in the impugned order when liberty has already been afforded to the Appellants to file fresh one, if legally entitled to do so and the execution application was disposed off in above terms with liberty as aforesaid. It is pertinent to add here that in identical set of circumstances, the Principal Bench of this Commission had passed orders on 05.04.2024 and 23.04.2024 for withdrawal of as many as seven execution applications in the same matter of the Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as the resolution plan was approved by the IRP and liberty to the Decree Holders/Complainants was afforded to approach the Commission in case their grievance is not redressed.  It is thus, demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind.

 

7.         In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this execution appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

 

8.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

9.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

14^th Oct., 2024                                                                  

                                         Sd/-                         

                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”