Ankit Kumar Shah vs Swati Modi & 2 Ors

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This execution appeal has been filed under section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.04.2019 wherein the following order has been passed:

"Applicant Advocate A R Tantia Present. Application of applicant for taking new Director on record stands accepts. Cause title be kept on record. In evidence of applicant, the affidavit of Smt Swati Modi and Navin Modi is filed. Perused. On the basis of evidence of applicant the offence under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act seems to be committed by respondent. Hence, cognizance against the accused stands taken. They must be called by way of summon. File be posted for service. On 20.05.2019 parties are directed to present."

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. He stated that as per the order dated 16.04.2019, he did not appear before the State Commission as the notice was sent to the official address of the Company and he was the independent Director and he did not have any information about the notice. On 20.05.2019, arrest warrants were issued and he appeared before the State Commission and got the bail. Now he has come before this Commission for setting aside the order dated 16.04.2019. He stated that against an independent Director no execution can proceed for compliance of any order because an independent Director is not involved in day to day functioning of the Company.

First of all it is seen that there is a delay in filing the appeal as the order is of 16 th April 2019 and the appeal has been filed on 4 th September 2019. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant, number of days of delay has not been mentioned. However, there seems to be a delay of more than three months.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. From the order dated 16.04.2019, it is clear that only notice was issued to the appellant to appear and file his response. Learned counsel states that the notice was not received by him and he could not file his response. Then arrest warrant was issued and the appellant got the bail from the State Commission. Firstly, it is seen that this appeal has been filed with a delay of more than three months, therefore, the appeal is admitted for consideration at a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within a period of four weeks.

On merit also, the appellant has not filed his response in the matter before the State Commission which is the trial forum in this case. Permission is granted to the appellant to file his defence before the State Commission and the State Commission shall proceed in the execution case against the appellant only after the State Commission has decided the representation given by the appellant. Accordingly, First Appeal no. 1824 of 2019 is disposed of and the appellant is directed to submit his defence/ representation before the State Commission within a period of four weeks and the State Commission shall decide the same before proceeding further in the execution case qua the appellant.