Hetali Enterprises Vs Dr. Vija Y Purushottam Kale — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2026)

Hetali Enterprises Vs Dr. Vija Y Purushottam Kale — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the Appeals and the applications stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Execution Orders passed by the NCDRC (orders dated 10.06.2024 and 23.08.2024) granted relief beyond the main order dated 08.12.2021, given that the exact carpet-area shortage was not specified in the operative portion of the main order. +1 more

Court's answer

The issue regarding the shortage in area not being specifically mentioned in the operative part of the order dated 08.12.2021 cannot be considered in the present Appeals, which are directed against the Impugned Order passed in the Writ Petitions challenging the NCDRC Execution Orders; that ground was already agitated in the Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court (withdrawn with liberty to seek review), the Review Applications were dismissed on 13.05.2022, and the Writ Petitions against that dismissal were dismissed on 07.01.2026.

Ratio / Principle

It is settled law that the Executing Court has power to pass such orders to interpret, clarify and resolve all questions relating to the execution and also interpret the ambiguities to ensure effective enforcement without going behind the Decree or alter the substantive rights.

Key takeaways

No infirmity is found in the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the NCDRC in the Execution Proceedings specifying the exact actual carpet area which was found to be short as per the order dated 08.12.2021, though not mentioned in the operative portion, having been mentioned in the submissions of the Respondents (original Complainants before the NCDRC).ratio¶66
The Impugned Order rightly held that the order dated 23.08.2024 did not call for any interference, given that it only interprets the order dated 08.12.2021 and does not go behind the same; the Court finds no merit in the present Appeals and concurs with the finding of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia; oral judgment by Tejas Karia, J.) dismisses LPA 86/2026, LPA 87/2026 and LPA 88/2026 with connected CM applications filed by Hetali Enterprises against the order dated 23.01.2026 disposing W.P.(C) 13834/2024, 13837/2024 and 13846/2024, which had challenged NCDRC execution orders dated 10.06.2024 and 23.08.2024. The execution orders flowed from the NCDRC common order dated 08.12.2021 in complaints under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 concerning redevelopment flats (compensation @ ₹24,650/- per sq. ft. for carpet-area shortage; refunds @ 9% per annum; ₹10,00,000/- towards mental agony; ₹2,00,000/- litigation cost). Held: the executing forum may interpret, clarify and resolve execution-related questions and ambiguities to ensure effective enforcement without going behind the decree; the order dated 23.08.2024 merely interpreted the order dated 08.12.2021 and did not go behind it; the grievance of unspecified carpet-area shortage in the operative portion stood exhausted through the withdrawn Supreme Court civil appeals, the rejected review applications (13.05.2022) and the writ petitions dismissed on 07.01.2026. Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.