caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
L And T Finance Ltd. vs Pramod Kumar Rana on 25 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5894-5895 OF 2021
L & T Finance Ltd. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Pramod Kumar Rana & Anr. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated
26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and the subsequent order dated 16.09.2021
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”) passed in Consumer
Complaint No.1653 of 2018, the original opposite party No.2 – L & T
Finance Ltd. has preferred the present appeals.
2. Facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
2.1
Date: 2021.11.25
17:32:02 IST
That one complaint being Consumer Complaint No.1653 of 2018
Reason:
filed by the respondent No.1 Pramod Kumar Rana is pending before the
1
National Commission. The aforesaid complaint came up for hearing
before the National Commission on 12.08.2021. Learned counsel for the
original opposite party No.1 – M/s. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
made a submission on the instructions that the matter has been settled
between the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant requested for
an adjournment to seek instructions in this respect. The matter was
adjourned to 26.08.2021.
2.2 The complaint was taken up for further hearing on 26.08.2021.
Learned counsel appearing for the original opposite party No.1 again
submitted on instructions that the matter has been settled between the
parties. However, the complainant, who appeared in person, made a
grievance that he has been pressurised/forced by the representatives of
the two opposite parties to sign on blank papers and visits threatening
him were made to his residence by the representatives to force him into
a “settlement” which according to him is neither amicable nor voluntary
and nor equitable. The National Commission by order dated 26.08.2021
directed Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of the original opposite party
No.1 company and one Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of
original opposite party No.2 company to appear in person, either in
physical hearing or through video conferencing with counsel on the next
date of hearing to explain the situation and clarify their position with
2
regard to the allegations made by the complainant. The matter was
adjourned to 03.09.2021.
2.3 On 03.09.2021, the said Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of the
original opposite party No.1 appeared through video conferencing. On
behalf of original opposite party No.2, the authorised representatives and
their counsel appeared before the National Commission. However, Shri
Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the original opposite party
No.2, who was required to appear as per previous order dated
26.08.2021, did not appear. It was submitted on his behalf that an
application seeking exemption for his personal appearance had been
moved, which was pending in the Registry. The National Commission
directed to list the case again on 16.09.2021 and directed that on that
date, both Shri Mukesh Aggarwal and Shri Dinanath Mohandas
Dubhashi shall also appear either personally or through video
conferencing.
2.4 That on 16.09.2021, Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of the original
opposite party No.1 remained present. However, again Shri Dinanath
Mohandas Dubhashi did not remain present. It was pointed out that
against the order dated 26.08.2021, a review application was filed, which
is pending. As Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the
original opposite party No.2 company did not remain present, by order
3
dated 16.09.2021, the National Commission directed to issue bailable
warrants against Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the
original opposite party No.2 company and directed that Shri Dinanath
Mohandas Dubhashi be produced in person before the National
Commission on 18.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned orders dated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021, the
original opposite party No.2 – L& T Finance Ltd. has preferred the
present appeals.
3. Though served nobody has remained present on behalf of the
respondent No.1 – original complainant.
4. We have heard Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of appellant – original opposite party No.2 company.
5. Having gone through and perused the impugned orders passed by
the National Commission, it appears that in view of the allegations made
by the original complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021 that
“he has been forced by the representatives of the two opposite parties to
sign on blank papers and threatening visits were made to his residence
by the representatives to force him into a settlement”, the impugned
orders have been passed by the National Commission by observing as
under in the order dated 26.08.2021:-
4
“The allegations, as have been made by the complainant,
are of serious nature and may have grave implications.
This Commission is a lawfully created tribunal in order to
adjudicate upon the issues relating to consumer disputes
and arrive at just conclusions. Anybody and everybody
who feels aggrieved and for whom redress may be
provided under the Act can approach this Commission
invoking its jurisdiction as provided by law. Free access
and unfettered right to approach, as permissible by law, is
inbuilt in the system where rule of law prevails. Any
attempt to impede such a course, not to speak of
exercising coercion against anybody, cannot be rightly
taken or be countenanced with. The matter requires
explanation forthwith.”
5.1 As, on the subsequent dates, Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi,
the Director of the original opposite party No.2 company did not remain
present, subsequent orders have been passed dated 03.09.2021 and
16.09.2021 and by the order dated 16.09.2021, bailable warrants have
been issued against him by further directing that he may be produced
before the National Commission on 18.10.2021. However, it is required
to be noted that all throughout the representatives of original opposite
party No.2 company and their counsel remained present before the
National Commission. It is true that if the allegations made by the
original complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021 “to
pressurize him and giving threats to enter into settlement” are found to
be true, the same are very serious and can be said to be interfering in
the administration of justice. However, at the same time, the allegations
are yet to be considered in detail by the National Commission after
5
giving an opportunity to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are
represented through their counsel and even through their authorised
representatives, who remained present before the National Commission.
It is also required to be noted that even as per the allegations made by
the complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021, the
representatives of the opposite companies gave threats and forced him
to enter into settlement and there were no specific allegations against
the Director of original opposite party No.2 – Shri Dinanath Mohandas
Dubhashi. Be that it may, even the review application against the order
dated 26.08.2021 is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, issuance of the bailable warrants against
Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, the Director of original opposite
party No.2 was not warranted at this stage. Bailable warrants are to be
issued as a last resort and only in a case where it is found that the
opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding
appearance before the National Commission deliberately and/or they are
not represented at all either through their authorised representative or
through their counsel. In the present case, the allegations made by the
original complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021 are yet to
be considered in detail by the National Commission after giving
opportunity to both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are
represented through their counsel and the authorised representatives
and even the Director of the original opposite party No.1 company has
6
always remained present in person before the National Commission
through video conferencing as directed. Therefore, issuance of bailable
warrants and the directions issued by the National Commission directing
Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of original opposite party
No.2 company to be produced, was not warranted at all at this stage. If
at all subsequently, it is found that anybody has tried to pressurize the
original complainant and pressurized him to enter into settlement and
any threatening visits were made to the residence of the original
complainant, further order can be passed by the National Commission.
It cannot be disputed that free access and unfettered right to
approach/justice, as permissible by law, is inbuilt in our judicial system
where rule of law prevails. Any attempt to impede or obstruct the course
of justice, not to speak of exercising any coercion against anybody, who
is before the court or authority in order to seek justice, cannot be lightly
taken or be countenanced with. However, at the same time, the case of
the complainant is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or established and
proved and the opportunities are to be given to the opposite parties. It is
to be noted that as such, appellant has been appearing through their
counsel and their authorised representatives and even Shri Mukesh
Aggarwal, Director of original opposite party No.1 has remained present
in person either through physical mode or though video conferencing.
7
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the orders
dated 26.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 directing Shri Dinanath Mohandas
Dubhashi, Director of the appellant company to personally remain
present through physical mode or through video conferencing and the
subsequent order dated 16.09.2021 issuing bailable warrants against
him are quashed and set aside. However, as observed hereinabove, it
will be open for the National Commission to pass further order after
giving opportunity to both the opposite parties to represent their case on
the allegations made by the original complainant recorded in the order
dated 26.08.2021. At this stage, the appellant herein – original opposite
party No.2 be permitted to be represented through his authorised
representatives and through his counsel. However, it will be open for the
National Commission to require the presence of Shri Dinanath
Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the appellant company, if required, in
future. It is reported that a review application to review or recall the
order dated 26.08.2021 is pending before the National Commission.
Therefore, now, the same may be heard, decided and disposed of by the
National Commission in accordance with law and on merits without
being in any way influenced by any of the observations made in the
present order. It is also made clear that we have not expressed anything
in favour of either of the parties on the allegations made by the original
complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021.
8
Present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 25, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
9
Comments