-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court set aside an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that required M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd to deposit the entire decretal amount as a precondition for stay in an appeal. The Court held this requirement was contrary to Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Legal Point of the Judgement: The core legal issue pertains to the NCDRC’s directive for depositing 100% of the decretal amount for granting a stay, which the petitioner contested as conflicting with Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This section stipulates a deposit of 50% or Rs. 35,000, whichever is less, for appeals against State Commission orders.
Facts and Issues: M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, engaged in real estate development, was directed by the NCDRC to deposit the entire decretal amount to stay the execution of a State Commission order. The High Court examined the procedural aspects and the statutory inconsistency in the NCDRC’s order.
Identical Orders Concern: The Court noted the NCDRC had passed mechanically identical orders in different matters, raising concerns over non-application of mind and lack of individual case assessment.
Non-Formulation of Opinion on Appeal Admission: The NCDRC had not decided on the admission of the appeal but imposed conditions for stay, leading the High Court to question the procedural appropriateness.
Predecessor Bench Observations: Previous observations indicated the NCDRC’s approach of issuing templated orders without individual case consideration.
Decision: The Delhi High Court set aside the NCDRC’s order for depositing the entire decretal amount. The matter was remanded back for reconsideration regarding the stay and admission of the appeal. The petitioner was directed to approach the NCDRC within two weeks, with execution proceedings stayed until further review.
Date of Decision: April 03, 2024
M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal
