JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          These appeals are directed against the orders of the State Commission, one being dated 08.07.2019 and the other order being dated 10.07.2019 whereby the State Commission, despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.04.2018 passed in SLP Crl. No.5978-5979/2017 and the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 passed in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. & connected matters, decided to proceed with the execution application against the appellant and dismissed the application which the appellant had filed for stay of the execution proceedings. 

2.      It is not disputed before me that the appellant M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Private Ltd. is a subsidiary company of Unitech Ltd.  The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies were considered by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. & connected matters on 08.01.2019 and the following view was taken:

(10)   Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Unitech Ltd., and its subsidiary companies of as well as against the persons incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business shall be kept in abeyance, so long as the orders pertaining to them and mentioned in para 35 hereinabove remain in force.

(11)   Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, against Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited and other applicants in Crl. M.P. No.29029/2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall remain stayed so long as the order dated 05.3.2018 is in force. 

3.      In view of the pronouncement of the three-Members Bench of this Commission, based upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the State Commission was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant company seeking stay of the execution proceedings. 

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the time frame fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for lodgment of claim on the web portal created on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court having expired, it is not possible for the complainants to lodge their claim on the said portal.  Even if this is so, the execution proceedings cannot continue against the appellant company so long as the above referred orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court remain in force.  It is for the complainants to decide their next course of action, in view of the circumstances highlighted by them.

5.      Therefore, the delay in institution of these appeals is condoned.  The impugned orders are set aside and the execution proceedings against the appellant company are kept in abeyance so long as the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies, as mentioned in para 35 of the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 remain in force.  Of course, the complainants/respondents shall be entitled to seek revival of the said execution proceedings if so permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The appeals stand disposed of.