Taken up through video conferencing.

Appeal (Execution) No. 42 of 2021 and Appeal (Execution) No. 43 of 2021:

1.       Learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both appeals, appeal (execution) no. 42 of 2021 and appeal (execution) no. 43 of 2021, requests for adjournment, submitting that the learned counsel is in personal difficulty.

2.       When we expressed our disinclination to adjourn the matter, for reasons which shall be recorded hereinafter, learned proxy counsel submits that “settlement talks” are going on between the appellants / accused and the respondents / execution applicant(s) and accordingly adjournment be considered.

Appeal (Execution) No. 42 of 2021:

3.       A perusal of the record shows that appeal (execution) no. 42 of 2021 was filed on 12.04.2021 under Section 73 of the Act 2019 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 24.03.2021 in E.A. No. 114 of 2019. Proceedings before the Registry were undertaken on 07.07.2021 and 30.07.2021 for curing the defects. The defects were cured on 02.09.2021. The case was listed for hearing on admission on 07.09.2021. On the said date learned counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment. Adjournment of two weeks was granted. The case has now been listed today i.e. 24.09.2021 for hearing on admission. Again a request is being made for adjournment.

4.       The State Commission’s Order dated 24.03.2021 which has been impugned herein is reproduced below:

                    Dated :24^th March, 2021

ORDER

Advocate Mr. Mohit Bhansali is present for execution applicant. Execution applicant is not present. Advocate Mr. Prasanna Bhangale is present for accused. He has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused. None present for accused in spite of service of summons through Commission. No exemption application has been filed.

Ld. Advocate for accused invited our attention to two rulings, one from the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the order passed in First Appeal No. 2072 of 2019 dated 11^th December, 2019 and that there was a stay granted by the Hon’ble National Commission till 14^th April, 2020. Another order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal No. 2152 and 2153 of 2020, in which the appeals filed by execution applicant were dismissed. The Ld. Advocate for the accused submitted that the accused have received summons. They will remain present by next date before this Commission in execution proceeding. The Ld. Advocate for execution applicant filed an application requesting for issuance of warrant against the accused.

Perused the record. Since there is no stay right now against the accused in any of the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission this proceeding against the accused will continue.  The advocate for the accused is hereby directed to keep all the accused present by next date or else non-bailable warrant will be issued against them. Matter stands adjourned to 19/04/2021 for presence of the accused and execution applicant.

            Later on Advocate for accused has filed exemption application.

5.       An appeal (execution) filed under Section 73 (Appeal against Order passed under section 72) is against an Order passed under Section 72 (Penalty for non-compliance of order), which provides for punishment of imprisonment or fine or both for failure to comply with any order made by the State Commission. Trial of offence punishable under Section 72 is conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XX Trial Of Summons-Cases By Magistrates of the Cr.P.C.

6.       A reading of the said Order dated 24.03.2021 shows that the State Commission simply directed that the accused be present on the next date of hearing with caution that otherwise non-bailable warrant(s) will be issued against them, and posted the matter to 19.04.2021 for the presence of the accused and the execution applicant.

7.       Ex facie we find nothing erroneous in the Order of the State Commission, which, as already said, but only directs the accused to be personally present on the next date of hearing and cautions them that otherwise non-bailable warrant(s) will be issued for their production. Trial of offence punishable under Section 72 of the Act 2019 is conducted in accordance with the provisions for trial of summons-cases contained in the Cr.P.C., and the State Commission was manifestly within its jurisdiction to require the personal presence of the accused. We note that the impugned Order of 24.03.2021 is quite innocuous in that nothing that may go towards guilt of accused or otherwise has been recorded, and, moreover, the next date fixed for appearance i.e. 19.04.2021 has already elapsed.  Needless to say that the appellants / accused are free to raise all their issues and contentions before the State Commission, and if the State Commission passes any order, which, in the opinion of the appellants / accused, may be bad on facts or law, they are free to agitate it as per the law.

8.       We do not approve of an appeal (execution), of such nature and substance, against such kind of order as has been impugned, being first filed, then be kept pending for curing defects, then being procrastinated in arguing on admission, with the date next fixed by the State Commission for appearance having meanwhile elapsed, not placing on record the proceedings undertaken in the State Commission on the subsequent date(s), and in parallels having a dialogue with the respondents / execution applicant(s). And we do not intend to further such situation

9.       We find no force in the request to grant further adjournment.

10.     The request for adjournment is politely declined.

11.     On merit, the appeal (execution) no. 42 of 2021 is dismissed as ill-conceived and bereft of worth.

Appeal (Execution) No. 43 of 2021:

12.     Appeal (execution) no. 43 of 2021 was filed on 12.04.2021 under Section 73 of the Act 2019 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 24.03.2021 in E.A. No. 115 of 2019. Proceedings before the Registry were undertaken on 30.07.2021 for curing the defects. The defects were cured on 02.09.2021. The case was listed for hearing on admission on 07.09.2021. On the said date learned counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment. Adjournment of two weeks was granted. The case has now been listed today i.e. 24.09.2021 for hearing on admission. Again a request is being made for adjournment.

13.     The State Commission’s Order dated 24.03.2021 which has been impugned herein is reproduced below:

Keep this matter along with Execution Application No. EA/19/114. S/o to 19.04.2021.

14.     A bare reading of the said Order dated 24.03.2021 shows that the State Commission had directed that the E.A. No. 115 of 2019 be posted for 19.04.2021 along with the E.A. No. 114 of 2019.

15.     We find nothing that requires to be examined in respect of this harmless Order requiring to list the matter with a connected matter.

16.     The request for adjournment is politely declined.

17.     On merit, this appeal (execution) no. 43 of 2021 is also dismissed as ill-conceived and bereft of worth.

Appeal Execution No. 42 of 2021 and Appeal Execution No. 43 of 2021:

18.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeals (execution) and to the learned counsel for the appellants as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.