INDERJEET SINGH Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in for our consideration for which the revisionist-complainant has preferred this revision is that whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] was justified in staying the proceedings under execution till the complainant obtains the consent of the B. I. F. R. /appellate Authority to pursue with the execution case. The brief facts necessary for proper adjudication of the revision are narrated as under:

(2.) The revisionist-complainant filed a Complaint Case No.649 of 2002 before the District Forum-II alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/o. Ps. in not making payment to the revisionist/complainant in compliance with the order dated 11.8.1999 of the Company Law Board (for short hereinafter referred to as the CLB ). The District Forum after detailing reasons in its judgment dated 24.9.2002 allowed the complaint of the revisionist and directed O. P. Nos.1 to 3 to pay to the complainant as per the reschedulement order of the CLB dated 11.8.1999 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the amounts became due under the CLB order dated 11.8.1999 till payment.

(3.) The complainant filed execution case before the District Forum-II referred to above i. e. , Execution No.262 of 2002 under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act] for executing the order dated 24.9.2002 passed in the Complaint Case No.649 of 2000, which was opposed by the O. P. Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that M/s. Modern Denim Ltd. (O. P. No.1) had made a reference being Case No.325 of 2000 to the B. I. F. R. and further made a prayer that under Sec.22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as SICA), the execution could not be proceeded with.