A determination has to be made as to whether or not the decree in terms of the settlement agreement has been satisfied as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through a learned bench led by Justice Amit Bansal in the case of Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt Ltd v. Akash Gupta & Ors. (CM(M) 770/2021)
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents, being members of the Flora Welfare Association, filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, bearing Consumer Case No. 1893/2017 titled Flora Welfare Association Vs. Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt. Ltd., before the NCDRC. The said complaint was disposed of by the NCDRC vide decree dated 15th January, 2019, wherein it was recorded that the matter had been settled between the parties in terms of the written settlement dated 15th January, 2019, and which written settlement was ordered to form part of the said decree. Since the decree was not satisfied, the respondents filed execution applications under Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking enforcement of the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC as well as penalties to be imposed upon Shree Vardhman Infrahome Private Limited and its directors for non-compliance with the decree dated 15th January, 2019 of the NCDRC, and from which execution proceedings, the impugned order arises.
After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “The impugned order indicates that the matter is now listed before the NCDRC when the objections, as recorded in paragraph 5, are to be considered. The NCDRC is requested to decide the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner company on the next date of hearing or any short date thereafter. No coercive steps pursuant to the recovery certificate, if any issued, shall be taken against the petitioner company till the time the said objections are adjudicated by the NCDRC. It is clarified that no observations with regard to the merits of the matter have been made in the order passed today and all rights and contentions of the parties, including issues with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, and merits are kept open. The petition along with pending applications is disposed of.”
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani
