As per the office report, no stay order or any other order has been received from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, New Delhi or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after the dismissal of Petitions(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 17921/2013.
2. This application has been filed by the applicants/DHs/complainants for release of amount of Rs.1,17,38,800/- deposited by Opposite Party No.1 in the Execution Application bearing No. 30 of 2013. On receipt of the amount, in this Commission, the Execution Application was dismissed as fully satisfied on 14.1.2014.
3. The Counsel for JD No.1/OP No.1 has submitted that since the First appeal bearing No. 123 of 2012 filed against order dated 23.1.2012 passed by this Commission in complaint No.49 of 2011 is still pending before the Hon’ble National Commission , the amount be not released in favour of the applicants/DHs/complainants.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that against the order dated 23.1.2012 JD No.1/OP No.1 filed First Appeal No.123 of 2012 titled as M/s UNITECH Ltd. Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors, wherein the order dated 2.5.2012, was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which reads as under:-
“Heard.
Issue notice of the main appeal as well as of stay application to the respondents returnable on 8.11.2012.
In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, till next date, subject to appellant’s depositing entire awarded amount alongwith interest, within two months from today, with the State Commission.
On receipt of the amount, State Commission shall put the same in fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank, initially for one year.
Dasti.”.
5. On 8.11.2012, the date, for which the notice of appeal, as also stay application was issued to the Decree Holders/complainants/respondents, the following order was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi:-
“while issuing notice on 2.5.2012, operation of the impugned order was stayed till the next date subject to the appellant depositing the entire awarded amount along with interest within two months. Appellant filed IA No.2/2012 for extension of time and IA No.3/2012 for modification of the order.
Counsel for the appellant states that the flats are ready and has offered to hand over possession of the allotted/alternate flats as per choice of the respondents but the respondents are not prepared to accept the possession. Counsel for the appellant further states that the appellant is not in a position to deposit the amount as the appellant has spent the amount received from the respondent in construction of the flats. Seeks that the appellant be permitted to sell the flats provided the respondents give up their lien on flats.
Counsel for the respondents in F.A No.121 and 122 of 2012 and the respondent appearing in person in F.A No.123/2012 state that the respondents give up their lien on the flats and the appellants may be put at liberty to sell them in the market.
Counsel for the appellant states that on sale of the flats, the appellant shall deposit the amount, in this Commission. Period to deposit the amount is extended by another 3 months from today.
Adjourned to 26th February, 2013, stay to continue.”
6. On 26.2.2013 to which date the appeal had been adjourned the following order was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the same was adjourned to 16.4.2013:-
“Counsel for the appellant seeks one more opportunity to find the buyer.
Adjourned to 16.4.2013.”
7. On 16.4.2013 the following order was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
“while issuing notice on 02.05.2012 operation of the impugned order was stayed till the next date of hearing subject to appellant’s depositing the entire awarded amount with the State Commission within two weeks. Counsel for the appellant has filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 02.05.2012 requiring the appellant to deposit the entire decreetal amount.
Appellant is not in a position to hand over the possession of the originally allotted flats to the respondents/complainants in FAs 121 & 122 of 2012. Appellant repeats his offer to hand over the originally allotted flat to the respondent in FA No.123/2012 alongwith compensation in delivery as stipulated under the Agreement which the respondent/complainant is not prepared to accept the same at this stage.
In view of the fact that the appellant is not in a position to handover the originally allotted flats to the respondents/complainants in FAs 121 & 122 of 2012 and the fact that the respondent/complainant in FA 123/2012 is not prepared to accept the originally allotted flat at this late stage, the application filed by the appellant seeking modification of the interim order dated 02.05.2012 is rejected.
Admit. To be listed in due course.
Interim stay to continue subject to appellant’s depositing the entire awarded amount alongwith interest with this Commission within two months from today.”
8. Instead of depositing the entire awarded amount within two months from 16.4.2013, as ordered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the appellant/JD No.1 filed Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 17921 of 2013 against the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 123 of 2012. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.5.2013, which reads as under:-
“Upon hearing Counsel the court made the following order.
The Special Leave petitions are dismissed.”
9. From the afore-extracted orders, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that JD No.1, failed to comply with the same by depositing the entire awarded amount, as ordered by the former (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi). Thus, on account of non-deposit of the entire awarded amount, the orders of stay stood automatically vacated. Meaning thereby, that there is no stay, in the appeal, filed by the appellant/JD No.1, in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, though the same is pending. Thus the submission of the Counsel for
JD No.1/OP No.1, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
10. Under these circumstances, there is no legal impediment, in allowing the application, in the manner, that a sum of Rs.1,17,38,800/- alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon shall stand refunded to the applicants/DHs/complainants, against valid receipt, and on proper identification, on their furnishing an undertaking, that such refund shall be subject to the final decision, in First Appeal No.123 of 2012 titled as M/s UNITECH Ltd. Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors, already pending in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and that they will pay the amount due against them to the bank, from which they had raised the loan for the apartment, in question.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
12. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.
