SAI NINAD ENTERPRISES & ANR; AMIT PALSHETKAR,PARTNER OF SAI NINAD ENTERPRISES Vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH D SINGH & ANR; KUSUMLATA C SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Execution Appeals, filed by a Real Estate Developer namely, Sai Ninad Enterprises, (for short "the judgment debtor"), and its one of the, Partners, are directed against the orders, both dated 09.08.2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (fir short "the State Commission") in Execution Applications No. EA/16/72 and EA/16/73. By the impugned orders, while holding that the Appellants had deliberately failed to comply with the final orders dated 20.04.2016 passed in C.C. No. CC/13/210 and CC/13/211, the State Commission has convicted the Appellant Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") and sentenced Appellant No. 2-Amit Palshetkar @ Amit Patil, to undergo simple imprisonment for a maximum period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with the proviso that as and when the convict complies with the directions issued in the aforesaid final order, he shall be released forthwith, subject to payment of fine only and in the event of failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for three months. The relevant portion of the orders indicating the reasons weighing with the State Commission in arriving at the said conclusions, as follows:-

(2.) Hence, the present appeals.

(3.) Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has vehemently submitted that since the Complainant/Decree-holder had failed to make the requisite deposits, a pre-condition for execution of the sale -deeds in respect of the flats, within the time granted to them, the State Commission has fell into error in convicting and sentencing the partner of the Appellant firm.