Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs Hans Sachdev

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 888/2025 & CM APPL. 28681/2025 & CM APPL. 28682/2025

¶5

BALWANT SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Parolia and Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

HANS SACHDEV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipin Singhania, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶8

Respondent Mr. Hans Sachdev filed a consumer complaint bearing CC No. 1773/2019.

¶9

It was directed against two companies i.e. Ramaprastha Promotors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Bluebell Promotech Pvt. Ltd.

¶10

The aforesaid complaint was, eventually, allowed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) vide order dated 30.10.2023 whereby judgment debtor companies were directed to refund Rs. 67,09,113/- along with interest.

¶11

Admittedly, aforesaid order has already attained finality.

¶12

Pursuant to the aforesaid decree, an Execution Petition was filed by the complainant which was registered as NC/EA/112/2024.

¶13

Petitioners herein are alleged to be the Directors in Ramaprastha Promotors & Developers P Ltd.

¶14

Their grievance is that decree-holder could not have sued them as judgment debtor as there was no decree against them. It is also contended that,

¶15

CM(M) 888/2025 1

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 11:25:04

¶17

without there being any due service upon them, learned NCDRC has directed issuance of NBWs against them.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder appears on advance notice.

¶19

Next date before the learned NCDRC is stated to be 16^th instant. 10. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors submits that despite the fact that both petitioners are senior citizens, they would appears, physically, before learned NCDRC on said date and move appropriate application (s) seeking appropriate relief. He, however, reiterates that they could not have been impleaded as judgment debtor and if their appearance was being sought in context of Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the coercive process could not have been issued, without there being any corresponding application in this regard filed by decree holder.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder, in all fairness, submits that he never moved any application under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or for that matter under Order XXI Rule 41 (2) CPC. He, however, submits that such Directors cannot run away from their liability and, moreover, once the process had been issued, they should have, in due adherence to the summons, appeared before the learned NCDRC and could have made appropriate request before the learned NCDRC but there was no reason whatsoever to have disobeyed the summons of the Court . Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder, however, also submits that he had impleaded the Directors in terms of liberty granted by learned NCDRC in terms of order dated 10.01.2025.

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 11:25:04

¶22

CM(M) 888/2025 2

¶23

The impugned order dated 08.04.2025 reflects that the non-bailable warrants have been issued against the aforesaid two directors (petitioners herein).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors, without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioners, assures that they both would appear before the learned NCDRC on 16.05.2025 and would also move appropriate application seeking appropriate relief, inter alia, to the effect that they could not have been arrayed as judgment-debtors in the aforesaid Execution Petition .

¶25

In view of the aforesaid assurance, learned counsel for respondent/decree holder submits that, for the time being, he also would have no objection if the warrants are kept in abeyance.

¶26

Be that as it may, present petition is disposed of with the following directions: -

¶27

(i) NBWs against both the petitioners are kept in abeyance till 16.05.2025.

¶28

(ii) On the next date i.e. 16.05.2025, both the petitioners would appear before the learned NCDRC. On their such appearance, NBWs would stand recalled.

¶29

(iii) Petitioner no. 1 Mr. Balwant Singh is an octogenarian and is stated to be suffering from cancer and he would be at liberty to move application seeking exemption from his personal appearance for any subsequent date (s) with clear-cut undertaking that he would keep on rendering due assistance and co-operation to the learned NCDRC. Once any such application is moved, learned NCDRC, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides, would decide the same in

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

CM(M) 888/2025 3

¶32

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 11:25:04

¶33

accordance with law. However, nonetheless, on 16.05.2025 both the petitioners would appear, physically, before learned NCDRC.

¶34

(iv) Both the petitioners would also be at liberty to move any other application seeking appropriate relief and learned NCDRC would consider the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the other side.

¶35

All the pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. 17. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

¶36

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶37

MAY 13, 2025/ dr/shs

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed CM(M) 888/2025 4 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 11:25:04

Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Hans Sachdev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Hans Sachdev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Techno Auto Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jmf Synthetics India Pvt. Ltd.

Arn Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Tuhina Bhargava and Anr.

Sandeep Pandey Vs Nuevo Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Vinay Aggarwal Vs Har Bai (Deseased) through Lrs

Mehar Singh Nagpal Vs Anchal Bhatia

M/S Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs M/S Somaditya Management and Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.

Ramesh Kapoor Vs Usha Kapoor & Ors.

Dr. Anjali Raizada & Anr. Vs Aliya Alias Ali Hussain & Ors.

M/S Techno Auto Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jmf Synthetics India Pvt. Ltd.

Arn Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Tuhina Bhargava and Anr.

Sandeep Pandey Vs Nuevo Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Shailendra Bhushan Sharma Vs Sanjay Chopra

Smt. Praveen Lata Jain Vs Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain & Anr.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs M/S Atma Ram Properties (P). Ltd.