AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 The petitioner/company seeks to challenge the proceedings in E.A.No.69 of 2015, filed by the respondent No.3 in C.C.No.123 of 2014 under
Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby non-bailable arrest warrants dated 10.08.2017, were issued against its Managing Director.
Mr. V.V. Ramana, learned counsel who enters appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3/decree holder, states that aggrieved by the order
dated 07.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (‘District Consumer Forum’, for short), the
petitioner/company had preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Consumer Commission’, for
short) registered as FA No.271 of 2016, which is pending consideration.
Admittedly, no application was moved by the petitioner/company before the State Consumer Commission for seeking stay of operation of the
impugned order. In the meantime, the respondent No.3/decree holder approached the District Consumer Forum pressing EA No.69 of 2015, filed
against the petitioner/company, wherein the non-bailable warrants were issued against the Managing Director of the company on 10.08.2017. The
petitioner/company then moved an application before the District Consumer Forum seeking recall of the said order, which was returned under office
objections. In the meantime, the present petition was filed by the petitioner/company.
To put a quietus to the matter, we have enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner/company that if his client would be willing to deposit the
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded in favour of the respondent No.3/decree holder along with the up to date interest before the District Consumer Forum,
with a request that the said amount be placed in an FDR till a decision is taken in the appeal preferred by it and pending before the State Consumer
Commission. In the event the petitioner/company does not succeed in the said appeal, the respondent No.3/decree holder can then move an application
for release of the said amount.
Both the parties are agreeable to the said suggestion. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/decree holder states that the petitioner may be called
upon to deposit the money in the proceedings pending before the District Consumer Forum within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. The said amount
shall be placed in an FDR and the release thereof shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and presently pending
before the State Consumer Commission.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/decree holder has agreed that his client shall not press execution of the non-bailable warrants issued
against the petitioner or press the E.A, in case he complies with the aforesaid order within the timeline prescribed.
While binding both parties to the assurance/undertakings given hereinabove, the present petition is closed along with the pending applications, if any.