L & T FINANCE LTD. versus PRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 25-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
L & T FINANCE LTD.
v.
PRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5894-5895 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Administration of justice: Consumer complaint before
National Commission against original opposite party no.1 and 2 –
On the date of hearing, submission made by counsel of original
party no.1 that matter was settled between the parties – On the next
date of hearing, complainant made grievance that he was forced
by the representatives of the two opposite parties to sign on blank
papers and visits threatening him were made by their representatives
to force him into a “settlement” – On 26.08.2021, National
Commission directed the directors of the two companies to appear
on the next date in person, either in physical hearing or through
video conferencing with counsel  to clarify their position with regard
to these allegations – On next hearing, the director of  original
opposite party no.1 appeared through video conferencing –
However, on behalf of  original opposite party no.2, the authorised
representatives and their counsel only appeared before the National
Commission – The director did not appear as directed – Submission
made on his behalf that application seeking exemption from
appearance was moved which was pending in the Registry – On
3.9.2021, National Commission again directed the directors of both
the companies to appear on next date – The director of  original
opposite party no.2 again did not appear – It was pointed out that
against order dated 26.08.2021, a review application was filed
which was pending – By order dated 16.9.2021, National
Commission directed to issue bailable warrants against the director
of original opposite party no.2 and directed his production before
it on next date – Aggrieved original opposite party no.2 filed instant
appeal – Held: The allegations made by the complainant were serious
in nature – However, at the same time, the allegations were yet to be
considered in detail by National Commission, after giving an
opportunity to the opposite parties – The opposite parties were
represented through their counsels and also through their authorised
946
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
representatives – No specific allegations were recorded in order
dated 26.08.2021 against the director of original opposite party
No.2 – Even the review application against order dated 26.08.2021
was pending before the Tribunal – Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, issuance of bailable warrant was not
warranted at this stage – Bailable warrants are to be issued as a
last resort and only where it is found that the opponent parties are
not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance
deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through
their authorised representative or through their counsel – Orders
dated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 are quashed – At
this stage, original opposite party No.2 is permitted to be represented
through authorised representatives and through counsel – However,
it will be open for the National Commission to require the presence
of the director of the appellant company, if required, in future.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: It is true that if the allegations made by the original
complainant recorded in order dated 26.08.2021 “to pressurize
him and giving threats to enter into settlement” are found to be
true, the same are very serious and can be said to be interfering
in the administration of justice. However, at the same time, the
allegations are yet to be considered in detail by the National
Commission after  giving an opportunity to the opposite parties.
The opposite parties are represented through their counsel and
even through their authorised representatives, who remained
present before the National Commission. Even as per the
allegations made by the complainant recorded in order dated
26.08.2021, the representatives of the opposite companies gave
threats and forced him to enter into settlement and there were
no specific allegations against the Director of original opposite
party No.2. Even the review application against order dated
26.08.2021 is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, issuance of the bailable warrants
against the director of original opposite party No.2 was not
warranted at this stage. It cannot be disputed that free access
and unfettered right to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.