LexM/S SHREENATH CORP. & ORS. versus CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 9 S.C.R. 356 MIS SHREENATH CORP. & ORS. v. CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.9052 of 2013) JULY 7, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. 17 and 19 - Complaints filed against the appellants uls.17(1) - State Commission directed appellants to pay certain amount with interest in favour of the complainants - Appeal against order made by the State Commission - Conditional interim order D of stay passed by National Commission challenged as being contrary to the provisions of s. 19 - Held: The second proviso to s. 19 mandates pre-deposit for. consideration of an appeal . before the National Commission - Such a pre-deposit cor'fition has no nexus with the order of stay - If the National E Commission after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wanted to stay the amount awarded, it was open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay - Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding putsuant to order impugned F in the appeal stands at different footings; at two different stages -One (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the appeal and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss of, ~arty seei<ing such stay - Interference with the impugned order passed by the G National Commission therefore not called for. H A number of complaints u/s 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were filed by different persons against the appellants. The State Commission directed 356 SHREENATH CORP. v. CON. EDU. & RESEARCH· 357 soc. the appellants-opposite parties to pay certain amount with A interest in favour of the complainants. Against the aforesaid orders, the appellants preferred separate appeals u/s 19 of the Act before the National Commission. In all these appeals, separate interlocutory applications for stay were filed by the appellants. The B National Commission passed conditional interim order dated 15th May, 2012, staying the operation of the order passed by the State Commission till the next <tate subject to the appellants depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission. c The interim order dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the National Commission was challenged before this Court for being contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with appeals againstthe order made by the State Commission in exercise of its power conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17. The second proviso to Section 19 of the Act relates to "pre- deposit" required for an appeal to be entertained by the National Commission. The second proviso to Section 19 of the Act mandates pre-deposit for consideration of an appeal before the National Commission. It requires 50% of the amount in terms of an order of the State Commission or 35,000/- whichever is less for entertainment.of an appeal D E F by the National Commission. Unless the ap-pellant has deposited the pre-deposit amount, the appeal cannot be entertained by the National Commission. A pre-deposit G condition to deposit 50% of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission or Rs.35,000/- being ·condition precedent for entertaining appeal, it has no nexus with the order of· stay, as such an order may or may not be passed by the National Commission. H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A Condition of pre-deposit is there to avoid frivolous appeals. [Paras 9, 11] [361-C-G; 362-G-H; 363-A] · 1.2. If the National Commissi~n after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to stay the 8 amount awarded, it is open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay. Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant to order irilpµgned in the appeal stands at different footings, at two dt~rent stages. One (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the appeal C and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss of party seeking such stay. In view of the finding recorded above, the interference with the impugned order dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the National Commission is not called D for. [Paras 12, 13] [363-B-D, E] Dr. (Mrs.) K. K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.