1.       This appeal (execution) has been filed under section 27A of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.02.2021 of the State Commission in execution no. 37 of 2018 in complaint no. 237 of 2017.

2.       The appeal is listed for final hearing today. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. However learned proxy counsel appears for the appellant, and submits that the learned counsel is not available. He takes a brief interlude to seek instructions from the learned counsel. After an interlude learned proxy counsel submits that the learned counsel has shown his inability to come and argue the matter and has conveyed that the matter may be disposed of on the basis of the record.

It is seen that at the time of admission on 22.04.2021 the operation of the impugned Order was stayed, as such the execution proceedings before the State Commission are lying dormant.

In the wake of the above it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the appeal on the basis of record.

As such the record has been perused, including inter alia the Order dated 20.06.2018 in complaint no. 237 of 2017 which is under execution, the impugned Order dated 25.02.2021 passed in execution proceedings in execution application no. 37 of 2018 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The State Commission decided the complaint no. 237 of 2017 vide its Order dated 20.06.2018. It partially accepted the complaint and ordered the opposite parties to pay compensation for the delay in delivering possession of the subject residential unit by way of interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from 01.01.2015 till the date of offering possession after completing the construction and after obtaining the completion certificate from the competent authority. It also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. It further stipulated that the afore amounts can be adjusted by the opposite parties against the outstanding amount payable by the complainant.

4.       Quite evidently the said Order dated 20.06.2018 has attained finality within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act 1986 and as such it has been put to execution by the complainant i.e. the decree holder. In his execution application no. 37 of 2018 he has prayed for enforcement of the Order of 20.06.2018 as well as for punishment for non-compliance thereof, the prayer is in accordance with the provisions of section 25(3) ‘Enforcement’ as well as section 27(1) ‘Penalties’ of the Act 1986.

 5.      The Order impugned herein i.e. the Order dated 25.02.2021 has been passed in the execution proceedings. Its reading shows that the State Commission has made an extensive examination of the whole matter and has ordered the managing director and director of the opposite party no. 1 judgment debtor company and a particular functionary of the judgment debtor company who had filed an affidavit of compliance in the course of the proceedings to be personally present before the State Commission and produce a bank draft of Rs. 10 lakh in favour of the complainant on the next date of hearing and has also advised them that in case of absence the Commission may issue non-bailable warrants against them concomitant with initiation of proceedings under section 27 of the Act 1986.

6.       The opposite parties i.e. the judgment debtors are dutybound to comply with the Order which has attained finality and which is now under execution. Pertinently no warrant has as yet been issued nor proceedings under section 27 initiated. Just a direction to be personally present and produce a bank draft in favour of the complainant has been made along with caution re the consequences of absence.

7.       The managing director or director or the concerned functionary of the opposite party no. 1 judgment debtor company were free to raise all their issues and contentions and make all their submissions before the State Commission itself. They could also have filed application(s) seeking exemption from being present in person. Needless to say, the State Commission would have considered their submissions / application(s) on merit as per the law. However the opposite party no. 1 judgment debtor company preferred to file the instant appeal before this Commission. Significantly the managing director or director or the concerned functionary has not filed any appeal.

8.       On perusal of the record there appears absolutely no reason or good ground forthcoming which may cause to necessitate interference with the Order of the State Commission. The appeal appears bereft of worth, seems more in the nature of an attempt to delay and impede the execution proceedings.

9.       This Commission is consciously refraining from making a detailed critique of the matter since the proceedings are still pending before the State Commission and it does not want to colour the vision of the State Commission in any manner, lest it may cause any prejudice to either side.

10.     It may but be observed that an Order which has attained finality within the meaning of section 24 of the Act 1986 has necessarily to be complied with in its entirety, else execution, for ‘Enforcement’ under section 25(3) and for ‘Penalties’ under section 27(1) of the Act 1986, inevitably flows as a natural corollary to the failure or omission in compliance. Proceedings for ‘Enforcement’ under section 25(3) and for ‘Penalties’ under section 27 are distinct of each other, being in different domains. They can also be taken up concurrently, in parallels, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The judgment debtor cannot be allowed to prorogue, procrastinate or evade its lawful duty indefinitely. Efforts towards compliance have to be gauged from tangible acts of compliance and not from mere assurances or affirmations made from time to time. Disproportionate delay is nothing but failure and omission in compliance and the same unavoidably attracts proceedings under section 27 which provides for sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. The managing director and director of the opposite party no. 1 judgment debtor company and its concerned functionary who filed the affidavit of compliance must be cognizant of the law and its majesty and the legal perils which its breach entails.

11.     The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant to defray litigation expenses of the instant appellate proceedings before this Commission.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.