Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Hans Sachdev

1. Respondent Mr. Hans Sachdev filed a consumer complaint bearing CC No. 1773/2019.

2. It was directed against two companies i.e. Ramaprastha Promotors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Bluebell Promotech Pvt. Ltd.

3. The aforesaid complaint was, eventually, allowed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) vide order dated 30.10.2023 whereby judgment debtor companies were directed to refund Rs. 67,09,113/- along with interest.

4. Admittedly, aforesaid order has already attained finality.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid decree, an Execution Petition was filed by the complainant which was registered as NC/EA/112/2024.

6. Petitioners herein are alleged to be the Directors in Ramaprastha Promotors & Developers P Ltd.

7. Their grievance is that decree-holder could not have sued them as judgment debtor as there was no decree against them. It is also contended that, CM(M) 888/2025 2 without there being any due service upon them, learned NCDRC has directed issuance of NBWs against them.

8. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder appears on advance notice.

9. Next date before the learned NCDRC is stated to be 16th instant.

10. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors submits that despite the fact that both petitioners are senior citizens, they would appears, physically, before learned NCDRC on said date and move appropriate application (s) seeking appropriate relief. He, however, reiterates that they could not have been impleaded as judgment debtor and if their appearance was being sought in context of Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the coercive process could not have been issued, without there being any corresponding application in this regard filed by decree holder.

11. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder, in all fairness, submits that he never moved any application under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or for that matter under Order XXI Rule 41 (2) CPC. He, however, submits that such Directors cannot run away from their liability and, moreover, once the process had been issued, they should have, in due adherence to the summons, appeared before the learned NCDRC and could have made appropriate request before the learned NCDRC but there was no reason whatsoever to have disobeyed the summons of the Court. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder, however, also submits that he had impleaded the Directors in terms of liberty granted by learned NCDRC in terms of order dated 10.01.2025. CM(M) 888/2025 3

12. The impugned order dated 08.04.2025 reflects that the non-bailable warrants have been issued against the aforesaid two directors (petitioners herein).

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors, without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioners, assures that they both would appear before the learned NCDRC on 16.05.2025 and would also move appropriate application seeking appropriate relief, inter alia, to the effect that they could not have been arrayed as judgment-debtors in the aforesaid Execution Petition.

14. In view of the aforesaid assurance, learned counsel for respondent/decree holder submits that, for the time being, he also would have no objection if the warrants are kept in abeyance.

15. Be that as it may, present petition is disposed of with the following directions: -