Neeha Nagpal and Saahil Bahety v. Neelima Yadav

1. Both the petitions have been taken up together.

2. The impugned order is dated 01.05.2025 and has been passed by ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) while taking up Execution Petition registered as EX No. 60/2024. Such order reads as under:- “22/04/2025 EA/60/2024 Pr. Counsel for DH, Sh. Kamal Kishore Yadav. None for JD. Affidavit filed by DH in compliance of previous order. CM(M) 952/2025 & CM(M) 957/2025 2 NBW be issued against the directors of JD, Vikas Jain, Rishabh Jain, Sehzad Ahmad, Sanchit Jain, Komal Jain, Sushil Ansal and Pranav Ansal through the DCP concerned in terms of the previous order. Be listed on 16/05/2025. Process be given last as prayed for.”

3. It is informed that the matter was again taken up by learned District Commission on 16.05.2025 and perhaps fresh non-bailable warrants have been issued for 29.05.2025. It is, however, submitted that order has yet not been uploaded on the website of District Commission.

4. It is argued that, when the complaint was allowed, the direction to refund was, merely, given to M/s Ansal Hightech Townships Ltd./JD Company. Such direction for refund is not against any Director or individual and, therefore, without any prior notice, warrants could not have been issued.

5. According to learned counsel for petitioners- Mr. Pranav Ansal and Mr. Sushil Ansal, the Execution Petition had been filed against M/s Ansal Hightech Townships Ltd./JD Company only and, therefore, it is not, at all, clear as to on what basis, learned Commission has issued non-bailable warrants against them.

6. It is apprised that no application under Order XXI Rule 41 (2) CPC was moved either and that Mr. Pranav Ansal was never a Director in the JD Company.

7. None appears on behalf of respondent/decree holder on advance notice.

8. Fact remains, during course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he has no intention to avoid the execution proceedings and would ensure that both the petitioners appear before the learned District Commission on next date of hearing which is stated to be 29.05.2025 and would render due assistance and co-operation to the learned CM(M) 952/2025 & CM(M) 957/2025 3 Executing Court.

9. It is also submitted that, though, petitioner Mr. Sushil Ansal is eighty five years old, he would still appear before the learned District Commission on said date and would also make request for his exemption from personal appearance while undertaking that his counsel would render full assistance and corporation to the learned District Commission.

10. Once they appear before the learned District Commission, it will be upto the learned District Commission to consider any application moved by them and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order was challenged by him, by filing an appeal before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, since they did not get any early date of hearing there and since the warrants were looming large on their head, they were compelled to file present petitions. It is submitted that in view of the abovesaid relief granted to them, the petitioners would also withdraw their such appeals. Let these be withdrawn accordingly.

12. Both the petitions stand disposed of with directions to petitioners to appear before the learned District Commission on 29.05.2025.

13. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

JUDGE MAY 21, 2025/sw/PB