C R Ranganath Arun Vs M/S Aakruti Nirmiti Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2026)

C R Ranganath Arun Vs M/S Aakruti Nirmiti Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru (second respondent) directed to ensure all measures are taken through his office to execute the warrant, if any, issued by the District Forum, and to file a report with the registry of the High Court within two weeks about execution of the warrant issued; the first respondent must enter appearance in the enforcement proceedings before seeking any indulgence in the writ proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent (Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru) ought to be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19/08/2025 (Annexure-E) and execute the warrant issued in C.C.No.313/2022 by the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, given alleged police inaction frustrating enforcement of the consumer order. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court's intervention is warranted where there is inaction, delay or lack of diligence by the second respondent in executing and ensuring the warrants issued by the District Forum, since that would frustrate an order under the Consumer Protection Act and defeat the very purpose of proceedings under that enactment.

Ratio / Principle

If the first respondent is keen on settlement, its representative must duly enter appearance in the enforcement proceedings and seek appropriate orders; the first respondent cannot seek any indulgence in the present (writ) proceedings without entering appearance in the proceedings with the District Forum.

Key takeaways

The second respondent must be called upon to ensure that the warrant, if any, issued by the District Court (the District Forum) is executed at the earliest in redressal of the petitioner's grievance regarding delay in execution of the warrant.ratio¶6
Operative direction (Order [a]): the petition is allowed, calling upon the second respondent to ensure that all measures are taken through his office to execute the warrant, if any, issued by the District Forum.ratio¶Order [a]
Operative direction (Order [b]): the second respondent is also called upon to file a report with the registry of this Court within two weeks about execution of the warrant issued.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-Police) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an apartment purchaser seeking enforcement of the Non-Bailable Warrant issued in Execution Application No.66/2024 arising from the order dated 11.12.2023 of the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC No.313/2022. The District Forum had directed the builder (first respondent) and other opposite parties to execute the sale deed, failing which within 45 days to refund the sale consideration of Rs.31,13,730/- with 12% per annum interest, and had granted monetary compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and costs. Cognizance for an offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had been taken in the enforcement proceedings and Non-Bailable Warrants issued, but repeated representations to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru went unactioned. Held: the first respondent cannot seek indulgence in the writ proceedings without entering appearance in the enforcement proceedings before the District Forum; inaction, delay or lack of diligence by the police in executing the warrants would frustrate an order under the Act and defeat the very purpose of proceedings under the enactment. Disposition: petition allowed - the second respondent (Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru) to ensure all measures through his office to execute the warrant, if any, issued by the District Forum, and to file a report with the registry of the Court within two weeks about execution of the warrant. Single Judge: B M Shyam Prasad J.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 32360 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

C R RANGANATH ARUN S/O S CHIDAMBARARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.3D, MAYFLOWER, ANNAPOORNA APARTEMENTS, 4^TH STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU- 600038.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SURYA S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SUJI MALAYIL.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M/S AAKRUTI NIRMITI LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT NO. 002, DEVIDAYAL ROAD, MULUND, MUMBAI-400 080. REP. BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. VITTAL PATEL.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MUDDURAJA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE - E, DATED 19/08/2025 AND TO EXECUTE THE WARRANT ISSUED BY HON'BLE 4^TH ADDL. DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.313/2022 AND TRACE THE WHEREABOUTS OF ABOVE R.4.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has the benefit of the order dated 11.12.2023 in CC No. 313/2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru [for short, 'the District Forum' ]. The Forum has directed the first respondent and others who are arrayed as opposite parties to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner for an apartment with the observation that if the respondent and the others fail to execute the sale deed within 45 days, they must refund the sale consideration of Rs.31,13,730/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The District Forum has also granted certain monetary compensation towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and cost of litigation. The petitioner has commenced the enforcement proceedings with the District Forum in Execution Application No.66/2024, and the District

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

Forum, at the petitioner's instance, has issued process for service of notice to the respondent through the jurisdictional Police and subsequently has taken cognizance for an offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act' ] resulting in issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant to the first respondent and the others.

The petitioner seeks a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to execute the process issued by the District Forum asserting that no action has been taken despite repeated representations frustrating the enforcement. On 06.01.2026, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is called upon to accept notice for the second and third respondents and to ensure that communication of the present petition is served on the first respondent.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. In compliance with this direction, the

learned Additional Government Advocate submits

that the intimation is delivered and his instructions

are that the first respondent has appeared in the pending enforcement proceedings with the District Forum. Sri N Mudduraja, the learned counsel for the first respondent, reiterates the same and also submits that the first respondent is diligently following a possible settlement with the petitioner.

However, on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the first respondent has not appeared before the District Forum yesterday and therefore the District Forum has issued Non-Bailable Warrant. This Court's indulgence must be if there is any inaction on behalf of the second respondent in executing and ensuring that the warrants issued by the District Forum, or if there is any delay or lack of diligence in the second respondent ensuring the warrants issued by the District Forum in the

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

enforcement proceedings as that will only result in frustration of an order under the Consumer Protection Act defeating the very purpose for which the proceedings are conducted under such enactment.

If the first respondent is keen on a settlement, the first respondent's representative must duly enter appearance in the enforcement proceedings and seek appropriate orders, and the first respondent cannot seek any indulgence in the present proceedings without entering appearance in the proceedings with the District Forum. The second respondent must therefore be called upon to ensure that the warrant, if any, issued by the District Court is executed at the earliest in redressal of the petitioner's grievance with a delay in execution of the warrant. As such, the following:

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed calling upon

the second respondent to ensure that all measures are taken through his office to execute the warrant, if any, issued by the District Forum;

[b] The second respondent is also called upon to file a report with the registry of this Court within two weeks about the

execution of the warrant that is issued.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-