The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling addressing instances of court order violations by members affiliated with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The judgment delved into the responsibilities and accountability of NCDRC members regarding adherence to court directives, setting a precedent for legal conduct within the commission.
New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided by two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) regarding their defiance of an interim order from the top court. This order instructed them not to take any coercive measures against a real estate company.
These two NCDRC members previously been instructed to clarify why they issued non-bailable warrants against the directors of the company, despite the Supreme Court‘s interim order prohibiting any coercive actions against the company.
Read Also:Supreme Court Verdict: Airlines Liable for Agent-Promised Delivery Delays in 1996 Case
During a hearing on April 24 before a Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, the explanation provided by the NCDRC members failed to convince the court. The members claimed they were unaware of the Supreme Court’s interim order, but the Bench pointed out that the NCDRC’s own order dated March 8, which authorized the issuance of warrants, acknowledged the existence of the Supreme Court’s interim order issued on March 1.
This discrepancy raised concerns about the NCDRC members’ adherence to legal procedures and the importance of respecting higher court directives.
The Supreme Court in its order dated April 24 ,stated ,
“In expressing our reservations about the explanation provided, we note that it contradicts the NCDRC‘s own order. Despite acknowledging our Court’s order, the NCDRC proceeded to demand an affidavit of compliance regarding the execution of the decree from the appellant. This directive is unacceptable and directly contradicts our order issued on March 1, 2024,”
The case before the Court originated from consumer grievances filed by homebuyers affected by delays or non-delivery of flats in Gurugram’s ‘The Corridor’ housing project.
After obtaining compensation orders from the NCDRC, the homebuyers initiated various execution proceedings against the project developer, Ireo Grace, at the national consumer forum.
In response, Ireo Grace appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the compensation awards. On March 1, the Supreme Court granted interim protection to Ireo Grace and issued notices for the civil appeals, restraining the NCDRC from taking coercive measures against the company.
Despite this, in one of the execution proceedings, a two-member Bench of the NCDRC issued non-bailable warrants against Ireo Grace’s directors on April 2, 2024, following the company’s failure to submit certain compliance affidavits.
Upon learning of this, the Supreme Court sought an explanation from the NCDRC members involved in issuing the warrants, namely Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and Dr. Sadhna Shanker.
The Attorney General representing the NCDRC members informed the Supreme Court that the oversight was unintentional, and the members filed an affidavit expressing regret and stating their lack of awareness regarding the Supreme Court’s interim order.
However, Ireo Grace argued against this explanation, asserting that the NCDRC members could not claim ignorance of the Supreme Court’s order.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the merit in Ireo Grace’s argument, indicating a concern about the NCDRC members’ lack of adherence to the Supreme Court’s directives.
The Court stated,
“After examining the aforementioned order issued by the NCDRC on 8th March, 2024, it is evident that the appellant’s counsel (Judgement Debtor) had indeed provided a copy of this Court’s order from 1st March, 2024. Given this, it is difficult to believe the explanation now presented, claiming that the NCDRC was unaware of this Court’s order,”
Read Also:Supreme Court seeks response from all HCs, Tribunals on continuing virtual hearings
The Court stated,
“At the request of the esteemed Attorney General, schedule this for May 3, 2024, at the forefront of the Board,”
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, accompanied by advocates Abhimanyu Bhandari, Rooh-e-hina Dua, Dhanakshi Gandhi, and Ruchi, represented Ireo Grace in court.
On the other side, advocates Deepak Kumar Khushlani, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Chritarth Palli, Abhay Kumar, and Shagun Ruhil appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of a homebuyer who passed away. They representing the interests of the deceased homebuyer in the legal proceedings.
Read The Judgement: [Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd vs Sanjay Gopinath]