CASTROL INDIA LTD Vs. NEERJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 838/2012 - Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neerja & Ors. by which, the stay order passed in favour of the petitioner was not extended.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.1 filed complaint before District Forum and alleged that complainant was holding 3476 equity shares of OP -1/Petitioner. As per offer letter for purchase of shares by OP -1, complainant submitted the form of acceptance duly filled along with duly signed transfer form and share certificates, but complainant 's offer was rejected. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum for grant of difference of share price @ 150/ - per share on 1745 equity shares. OPs resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,218/ - along with 12% p.a. interest and Rs.50,000/ - as compensation and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation charges. Petitioner filed appeal along with stay application before learned State Commission and learned State Commission after hearing petitioner on stay application, vide order dated 10.10.2012, stayed operation of order of District Forum dated 24.5.2012 till next date and case was adjourned to 21.1.2013. On 21.1.2013, none appeared for the petitioner, but respondent -1 appeared in person and State Commission directed petitioner to furnish correct latest address of Respondent -2 within 7 days and thereafter to issue notice to Respondent -2. Service on Respondent -3 was presumed and matter was adjourned to 22.7.2013. It appears that learned District Forum in the light of orders dated 10.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 passed by the learned State Commission, stayed execution proceedings and adjourned execution proceedings to 29.7.2013. It appears that in the meantime, warrant of attachment was issued for recovery and in such circumstances, petitioner moved an application before learned State Commission and learned State Commission passed following impugned order:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after furnishing correct and latest address of Respondent -2; though, not in time, learned State Commission has committed error in not extending stay order dated 10.10.2012; though, it was impliedly extended upto 22.7.2013 by order dated 21.1.2013; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and stay order may be extended upto 22.7.2013, the date already fixed for hearing the matter before the State Commission. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative of Respondent no. 1 submitted that revision petition be dismissed, as it is not maintainable as well as time barred and Courts should not grant ex -parte interim stay. Learned Counsel for the Respondents no. 2&3 submitted that they have no objection in allowing revision petition.