NCDRC

NCDRC

AE/70/2021

HIGH POINT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. WATER FRONT DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANIRUDH SANGANERIA

22 Sep 2021

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 70 OF 2021
 
(Against the Order dated 14/07/2021 in Complaint No. 10/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. HIGH POINT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR- MR. SURESH BHATIA, 4406/7/8, HIGH POINT IV 45, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. WATER FRONT DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
4406/7/8, HIGH POINT IV 45, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr. Geet Ahuja, Advocate for
Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Arpit Madheshwari, Advocate

Dated : 22 Sep 2021
ORDER

 

 

          Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      Learned proxy counsel appearing for the appellant in appeal execution no. 70 of 2021 requests for an adjournment, submitting that the learned counsel is not available.

2.      Perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 14.07.2021 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.      A reading of the Order dated 14.07.2021 of the State Commission shows that it has been passed in execution proceeding (in Execution Petition No. 10 of 2016). And a reading of the memorandum of appeal shows that appeal has been filed before this Commission under Section 19 of the Act 1986.

4.      Execution proceedings under Section 25(3) or Section 27(1) of the Act 1986 are distinctively different from adjudication of a ‘consumer dispute’, are separate independent proceedings. Section 19 of the Act 1986, as also Section 51(1) of the Act 2019, is in relation to a ‘consumer dispute’.

Appeal against an Order passed in execution proceedings under Section 25(3) or Section 27(1) of the Act 1986 is not maintainable under Section 19 of the old Act 1986 (since repealed) or under Section 51(1) of the new Act 2019 (in force).

5.      As such the present appeal no. 70 of 2021, preferred under Section 19 of the Act 1986 (erroneously labelled as ‘appeal execution’), is not maintainable.

6.      There appears no need to provide an adjournment. A perusal of the record is sufficient to conclude that the appeal is not maintainable. The request for adjournment is politely declined. Also, there appears no need to trouble the learned counsel for the respondents / caveator for his arguments.

7.      The appeal, f.a. no. 70 of 2021, is dismissed as not maintainable.

8.      This Commission has not gone into the merits of the matter. As such remedy as may be available under the law can be sought by the appellant apropos the Order dated 14.07.2021 of the State Commission.

9.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeal within three days. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.                   

 
......................
DINESH SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.