LexMANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1181 [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1181 1181 MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021) DECEMBER 07, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.51 – Powers of National Commission to grant conditional stay of order passed by State Commission, on condition of deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount awarded – Orders passed by State Commission, appellants directed to refund the amount paid by home buyers with interest – Orders stayed by National Commission, directing appellants to deposit the entire decretal amount with interest, if any, with the State Commission – On appeal, held: Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to s.51 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission – Said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of interim order of stay by the National Commission – While staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order directing the appellant to deposit the entire and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the State Commission, however by assigning cogent reasons and/or pass a speaking order when granting such conditional stay – In the present case, the National Commission passed the impugned orders, mechanically without assigning any reasons – Matters remanded to National Commission to decide the stay applications afresh – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.19 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.5. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.51 – Pre-deposit condition – Object of – Discussed. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of A B C D E F G H 1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission. The object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals. The said pre- deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the National Commission. While considering the stay application in staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission. However, at the same time, the National Commission has to assign some cogent reasons and/or pass a speaking order when the conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission on deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission in the aforesaid manner. [Para 15][1192-E-H; 1193-A-C] 1.2 The impugned order(s) passed by the National Commission on the I.A.(s)/stay application(s) directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire decretal amount while staying the respective order(s) passed by the State Commission have been passed mechanically and without assigning any reason(s) and/or no speaking order is passed. Therefore, the matters are remanded to the National Commission to decide the said application(s) afresh and pass an appropriate order on the said application(s) in light of the observations made herein. [Para 16][1193-C-E] Shreenath Corporation and Ors. Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 657 : [2014] 9 SCR 356 – relied on. Case Law Reference [2014] 9 SCR 356 relied on Para 7.2 A B C D E F G H 1183 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7098 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2021 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IA/3621/2021 in FA/330/2021. With Civil Appeal Nos. 7099, 7100, 7101, 7104, 7102 and 7103 of 2021. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Pawan Kumar Ray, Riju Mani Talukdar, Deepak Goel, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Ankit Khera, Ms. Sneha Kohli, Advs. for the Appellant. Jitender Vashisht, P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.