M/S. SHREE MATANGI PROJECTS & ORS. vs MITESH R. MUMBAIWALA

Challenge in these two Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Nila Infrastructures Ltd. and its Directors, namely, Manoj B. Vadodaria, Kiran B. Vadodaria, Dilip D. Patel, Akhilesh C. Mehta, Shyamal S. Joshi, Hiren G. Pandit, Mehul Natwarlal Shah, Manish Dilipbhai Sanghani, and Dipakkumar Rambhai Mewada, Opposite Parties No.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3, 5 and 6 respectively in the Complaint, is to the common order dated 30.03.2017, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Civil Revision Applications No. 31 and 32 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the common order dated 23.03.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad City (Rural) in CMAs No. 675 and 676 of 2015, filed by the Petitioners. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the said Applications, wherein the Petitioners had prayed for deletion of the names from the Complaint, on the ground that in the light of the legal provisions contained in Sections 27 and 28 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, they could not be made personally liable for any kind of liability, as may be fastened on the Firm, namely, M/s Shree Matangi Projects LLP, of which Nila Infrastructure Ltd., a body Corporate, of which the Petitioners are the Directors, is a Partner.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Complainant, who addressed us in person, at some length, we are inclined to agree with the contention urged on behalf of the Petitioners to a limited extent, viz. while deciding the said Applications, both the Forums below should have refrained from commenting on the merits of the liability of the Petitioners, particularly in the absence of any supporting evidence, which was yet to be adduced by the Complainant. However, we are of the opinion that since the Complainant is yet to adduce evidence in support of its case in the Complaint against the Opposite Parties, the decision of the Fora below in rejecting the Applications cannot be faulted with, warranting our interference in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, we uphold the view taken by the Fora below.

At this stage, it is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that because of the filing of the aforesaid Applications and these Revision Petitions, Written Versions on behalf of the Petitioners herein were not filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the observations by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. versus M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. nil of 2017 - D.No. 2365 of 2017) , we permit the Petitioners to file their respective Written Versions within four weeks from today. We also direct that the Complainant shall file his evidence by way of affidavits, within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Contesting Opposite Parties may file their affidavits by way of evidence, if so advised, within four weeks thereof.

Resultantly, we dismiss both the Revision Petitions, with a direction that after the parties have filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence, as may be advised, the District Forum shall decide the issue raised in the afore-noted Applications, namely, deletion of the Petitioners as a party to the Complaint, as a preliminary issue, uninfluenced by any observations in both the orders passed by the Fora below. It goes without saying that while considering the said Applications, the Fora below shall take into consideration the scope and purport of the afore-noted provisions, introduced by the 2008 Act.

We clarify that we are not called upon to comment on the decision of the State Commission in deleting Respondents No. 4 and 7 in the Revision Petitions, from the array of parties, as named in the Complaint. Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.