R SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STICHCRAFT INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is the Managing Director of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1- Company, was O.P. No. 2. Complaint by respondent No. 1 was filed seeking refund of Rs. 10,59,100 which was paid to respondent No. 2 for purchase of certain land with interest as also compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony. After filing written version, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 did not participate in proceedings. Complaint was allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 18.8.2004 with direction to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to refund the said amount of Rs. 10,59,100 with interest and pay Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony. In execution proceedings taken out by respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed misc. application No. 205/2005 for recalling non-bailable warrant and this application was dismissed by the order dated 17.2.2006 on ground of petitioner not having complied with the order for deposit of certain amount. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) Relying on Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the submission advanced by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh for petitioner was that the State Commission in first instance should have issued recovery certificate for the awarded amount in the name of Collector concerned who can realize that amount as arrears of land revenue and it was not permissible to take recourse to the provision contained in Section 27 of the said Act. However, submission is without any merit. It is open to the State Commission to proceed either under Section 25 or Section 27 or simultaneously under both the sections if the payment of awarded amount is not forthcoming. Decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 1064-1067 of 1982 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dalmia Magnesite Corpon., Salem (decided on 20.3.1997) and Criminal Appeal No. 1350 of 2003: Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., VI (2004) SLT 88=IV (2004) CCR 136 (SC), (decided on 22.9.2004) by the Supreme Court have no applicability to the facts of this case.

(3.) Mr. Singh also attempted to show the main order dated 16.8.2004 is not legally sustainable. Since petitioner did not file any appeal against that order, same has attained finality and cannot be examined in execution proceedings. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order under challenge on either of the Courts calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.