RASHIED SYED AHMAD Vs. MAHMOOD AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 24.2.2009 whereby the District Consumer Forum -I, Lucknow has convicted all the appellants and sentenced them to undergo one month imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. It is not denied that the three appellants are the judgment debtors under the decree passed in Complaint Case No. 428/2001. The original judgment dated 6.7.2007 was confirmed when the appeal presented by these appellants against the said judgment no doubt ex parte, was dismissed on 24.10.2008. After dismissal of the Appeal No. 1043/2008, execution petition was filed in which non -bailable warrant was issued. However, the said order was interfered with by this Commission vide order dated 6.1.2009 as the non -bailable warrant had been issued prior to awarding a sentence. The Forum below was instructed to pass an order under Section 27(1) of the Act and then issue the warrant. Now the conviction order in question which has been issued after hearing the parties is in consonance with our instructions as well as the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Act. The appellants have failed to discharge their liability in accordance with the judgment dated 6.7.2007.

(3.) THE contention that the appellants transferred their shares long back cannot now be looked into as the judgment dated 6.7.2007 was confirmed in Appeal No. 1043/2008. The decree holder/complainant deposited his money with Al Falah Mutual Benefit Limited a company floated by the appellants. Their contention that they are not now owner of the said company cannot be looked into in the execution proceedings. The sentimental arguments that the appellants are persons of status will not weigh insofar as the right of the decree holder to recover his amount which he deposited with the appellants company is concerned.