AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BY this order we propose to dispose of revision petitions No. 658/96 and 659/96 as they raise common questions of Law. Various persons arrayed as respondents in these revision petitions, obtained order for the payment of certain amounts against M/s. Skipper Builders Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. or M/s. Skipper (India) Ltd. Payments having not been made in compliance with the order of the Fora, proceedings were initiated u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Managing Director, Mr. Tejwant Singh and one of the Directors Mr. Prabhjot Singh, S/o Mr. Tejwant Singh, were summoned. They failed to appear. Ultimately, non-bailable warrants appeared to have been issued which could also not be executed. It was in these facts and circumstances that District Forum-II directed that the aforesaid persons be declared proclaimed offenders and notice be published for their appearance. The order has been assailed in the present revisions on the ground that the Fora had no jurisdiction to declare the revision petitioners as proclaimed offenders.
THE contention on behalf of the revision petitioners is that the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act being creature of statute as distinguished from a Court of plenary jurisdiction properly so called could exercise only the powers which had been expressly or impliedly conferred on it. THE Code of Criminal Procedure, it was submitted, had not been made applicable and provisions relating to declaration of proclaimed offender, could not be applied to the proceedings under the Act. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that in order to carry out the provisions of Section 27, it was open to the Fora to devise its own procedure and as long as the procedure devised was just and fair it could not be challenged on the ground that no enabling provisions has been made to that effect in the Act. Reliance has been placed on Byford Leasing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 57 (1995) DLT 623 in which Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act came up for consideration before Delhi High Court. It was held that in exercise of its powers u/Section 27 the Fora has to devise a procedure of its own provided that the procedure adopted is just and fair. SLP against the said order being SLP (Crl.) No. 2498-2499/95 against the decision of the Division Bench in Byford Leasing Ltd. case (supra) was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court on 4.8.95.
It has not been disputed that there is ample authority for the proposition that the order passed against a public or private limited Company can be enforced by proceeding against the Managing Director or other persons responsible for carrying on the business of the Company. In order to make such action real and effective it has also been laid down that the presence of such Directors etc. can be enforced by coercive process. The question arises if the presence of a person cannot be secured even after issuing Nonbailable warrants what steps can be taken to enforce the order. Viewed in this context, we are of the opinion that it is open to the Fora to declare the person whose presence is necessary, as a proclaimed offender. We, accordingly, affirm the order passed by the District Forum-II and dismiss both the revisions. A copy of this order be communicated to both sides as well as to District Forum-II for taking further action according to law. Revision dismissed.