Disposed

Vatika Limited v. Sunil Verma & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jul 2026CM(M)/1310/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged NCDRC's issuance of non-bailable warrants against company directors during execution without deciding Section 47 CPC objections. Parties agreed the Commission should decide the objections; the High Court directed it to do so and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

NCDRC directed to consider and decide petitioner's Section 47 CPC objections at next hearing; petition and pending applications disposed of.

Vatika Limited Vs Sunil Verma & Anr. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1310/2026 & CM APPL. 39078/2026

¶4

VATIKA LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Ms. Omita Unnankar and Mr. Anurag Mishra, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUNIL VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Tanishq Sirohi, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

O R D E R % 07.07.2026

¶11

The present petition is impugning the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’) in Execution Application No. 445/024 in Consumer Complaint No. 2681/2018, titled as “Sunil Verma and Anr. v. Vatika Limited and Ors.” , whereby non-bailable warrants were issued against the Directors/Managing Director of the petitioner company.

¶12

The dispute arises out of a consumer complaint wherein the respondents sought possession of Villa No. 62 or, in the alternative, other consequential relief.

¶13

Although the final order dated 18.04.2024 directed delivery of possession, the petitioners contended during execution that the decree, insofar as it directed possession, had become inexecutable and expressed their willingness to comply with the monetary component of the decree by

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:35:45

¶16

refunding the amount with applicable interest.

¶17

The petitioners thereafter filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Order XXI CPC, questioning the executability of the decree. Their grievance is that, without adjudicating the said objections and despite their willingness to satisfy the executable portion of the decree, the learned Commission/NCDRC proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the Directors/Managing Director of the petitioner company by the impugned order dated 14.05.2026.

¶18

After some hearing, learned counsel for the parties submit that they are ad idem that, in the event a direction is issued to the directions to the NCDRC to consider and decide the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC on the next date of hearing i.e., 13.07.2026, the present petition would not survive for further consideration and may accordingly be disposed of.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the NCDRC is directed to consider and and decide the objections filed by the petitioner on the next date of hearing, i.e., 13.07.2026. In the event the matter cannot be taken up on the said date for any reason, the objections shall be decided on such date as may be fixed by the learned Commission at its convenience, preferably without undue delay. 7. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application(s), stands disposed of.

¶20

It is clarified that the directions passed by the NCDRC, have not been taken into consideration, while passing this order.

¶21

JULY 7, 2026 /ar/dd

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:35:45

Vatika Limited v. Sunil Verma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vatika Limited v. Sunil Verma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Denasa Buildcon and Ors. & Ors. Vs a. Mishra Proprietor of Metallon Building Systems

Harpal Singh Chawla & Ors. Vs M/S Unicon Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Galaxy Oncology Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs 2S Wellness and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

V.K.Bahl and Anr. Vs Engineering and Industrial Corpn Ltd. and Ors.

Smt Shakti Bala & Ors. Vs Smt Anjali Sharma & Anr.

Hira Lal & Ors. Vs Jai Chand Bothra & Ors.

Kshitiz Prakash Vs Brij Bhushan Attri

Shri Balram Aggarwal Since Deceased through His Lrs Vs Shri Sunil Gupta

M/S Denasa Buildcon and Ors. & Ors. Vs a. Mishra Proprietor of Metallon Building Systems

Harpal Singh Chawla & Ors. Vs M/S Unicon Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Galaxy Oncology Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs 2S Wellness and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Raj Tomar Vs M/S Jai Durga Traders Private Ltd.

Pushpa Devi Vs Maninder Singh

Tarun Kumar Jain Vs Meenakshi Jain and Anr.