SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. KIRTI MALVIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of revision petition Nos. 2449-2553 filed by petitioner/judgment debtor against a common order dated 2.7.2002 dismissing application(s) filed under Section 151, C.P.C. by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Execution Case Nos. 370 of 1997 filed by Dr. Kirti Malviya, 554 of 1992 filed by Ram Narain Yadav, 158 of 1994 filed by Ashish Midha, 256 of 1994 filed by Raman Singh and 255 of 1994 filed by Abdur Shafi decree holders/respondents.

(2.) Aforesaid order would show that petitioner was directed to refund the amount(s) as detailed in final order(s) passed in the complaints and as it did not refund the amounts, the respondent filed said execution applications under Sections 27/25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Petitioner filed application under Section 151, CPC seeking stay of execution applications under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short SICA) which were dismissed by the impugned order taking note of the order dated 22.11.2002 in RP Nos. 1248 of 1999 to 1316 of 2000 M/s. RBBL Industries Limited & Anr. v. Pushpa Devi Oberio & Ors. passed by the State Commission. Submission advanced by Mr. R.S. Hegde for petitioner was that the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act are civil in nature and, therefore, Section 22(1), SICA would be applicable to the execution applications filed by the respondents. Reliance was placed particularly on the decisions in Ashish Kumar Biswas v. D.D.A. & Ors., I (1997) CPJ 409=1986-96 Consumer 2299 (NS); M/s. Rajindra Properties & Industries v. R.S. Nandwani & Anr., 1986-96 Consumer 3372 (NS) and to Para No. 58 (at pp-3-4)of the authority in State of Karnataka v. Vishwa Bharati House Building (Coop) Society & Ors., I (2003) SLT 435=2003 (1) Scale 309. As part of submission, it was further contended that by the order dated 31.3.2003, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi has issued show cause notice under Section 20(1), SICA for hearing objections/suggestions in the reference pending before it against the petitioner company and in view of this order the pending execution applications cannot be proceeded with further. On the other hand, relying on the decisions in Gujarat Steel Tube Company v. Virchandhai B. Shah & Ors.; M/s. BSI Ltd. & Anr. v. Gift Holdings Private Ltd. & Anr., II (2000) SLT 184=I (2000) BC 292 (SC)=I (2002) CCR 226 (SC)=AIR 2000 SC 96; M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors., I (2002) BC 300 (SC)=I (2000) CCR 308 (SC)=II (2000) SLT 325=AIR 2000 SC 954; and Anil Handa v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., X (1999) SLT 1=IV (1999) CCR 285=AIR 2000 SC 145, the submission advanced by Shri Ram Prakash Gupta for respondents was that the proceedings under Section 27 are criminal in nature, and therefore, the provisions cotained in Section 22, SICA would not be attracted. Brief notes of submissions have also been filed on behalf of the parties.

(3.) Section 22(1), SICA which is material, reads thus :