Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/12/2021

Mr. Deepak Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sonia Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Dewan Adv.

23 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Revision Petition No.	:	12 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	23.12.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Deepak Gupta S/o Late Sh. S. C. Gupta, Ex-Director, MVL Limited, aged about 52 years, resident of Plot No.502, 1^st Floor, Sector 1, Vaishali, Uttar Pradesh – 201010.

…..Petitioner.

V e r s u s

1]       Ms. Sonia Singh D/o Sh. Surinder Singh R/o Flat No.1624, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh – 160036.

2]       Smt. Baljit Kaur W/o Sh. Surinder Singh R/o Flat No.1624, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh – 160036.

3]      MVL Limited through the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Delhi, 8^th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110003.

 ….Respondents.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued BY: Sh. Anuj Dewan, Advocate for the revision petitioner (on VC).

                   Ms. Sapna Randhawa, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 (on VC).

                   Sh. Amish Tandon, Advocate for respondent No.3 (on VC).      

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   This revision petition has been filed by Sh. Deepak Gupta, Former Director of MVL Limited seeking revision of orders dated 01.04.2021, 01.07.2021 and 05.10.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’] in complaint case No.196 of 2021.

Brief facts:-

2]                Complaint No.196 of 2021 was filed by two complainants, namely, Ms. Sonia Singh and Mrs. Baljit Kaur against MVL Limited through its Managing Director. Order dated 01.07.2021 transpires that the complainants had procured the email address of the opposite party from the official website (Annexure C-4 colly. in the record of Ld. District Commission) and the opposite party was duly served through email and for non-appearance, it was proceeded against exparte. The case was fixed for 18.08.2021 for leading evidence, if any and filing written arguments.

3]                However, on 18.08.2021, Sh. Akshay Joshi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the opposite party through video conferencing and Sh. Deepak Gupta, claiming himself as Director of MVL Limited sent email/communication requesting for recalling order dated 01.07.2021, vide which, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte.

4]                On 24.08.2021, an application for review of order dated 01.07.2021 vide which the opposite party was proceeded against exparte, was filed through email. The said review petition was dismissed by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 05.10.2021 with the following order:-

            “Review Petitioner-Mr.Deepak Gupta, Ex-Director, MVL Limited, filed review petition under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for review of order dated 01.07.2021 passed by this Commission in present consumer complaint. On his behalf, Sh.Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate is present and claimed that his vakalatnama is on record. However, perusal of the file shows that vakalatnama only in favour of Sh.Anuj Dewan and Sh.Akshay Joshi, Advocates, on behalf of review petitioner has been filed. Even hard copy of review petition is signed by review petitioner only and not by his counsel. However, there is a signature of Sh.Anuj Dewan, Advocate, on the scanned copy of review petition which was received through e-mail.

            It is settled law that District Commission has no powers to review/recall its own order. Hence, the review petition stands dismissed.

            Put up for arguments on 22.11.2021.”

5]                The said order dated 05.10.2021 has been assailed before this Commission mainly on the ground that the opposite party - Company is under liquidation and official liquidator has been appointed, the former Managing Director ceased to act in that capacity and now the Company can be sued through the official liquidator and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Ld. District Commission but the same has been ignored without any cogent reason.

6]                On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/ complainants submitted that Sh. Deepak Gupta is not a party to the proceedings and therefore, he has no locus-standi and this revision petition as well as application filed before the Ld. District Commission is not tenable being Sh. Deepak Gupta a stranger to the proceedings.

7]                 Ld. Counsel for respondent No.3/opposite party – Company (MVL Limited) has submitted that the Company is under liquidation and official liquidator has not been made a party.

8]                We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

9]                A bare perusal of order dated 05.07.2018, Annexure RP-4, passed by Hon’ble High Court, New Delhi in Company Petition No.668 of 2014 transpires that the Company was put under official liquidator. It is apposite her to reproduce Para 7 of order dated 05.07.2018:-

“7.     In my opinion, this is a fit case for admitting the petition and appointing the OL as the Provisional Liquidator. Accordingly, the petition is admitted and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. He is directed to take over all the assets, books of accounts and records of the respondent-company forthwith. The citations be published in the Delhi editions of the newspapers ‘Statesman’ (English) and ‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi) as well as in the Delhi Gazettee, at least 14 days prior to the next date of hearing. The cost of publication is to be borne by the petitioner who shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- with the Official Liquidator within two weeks, subject to any further amounts that may be called for by the liquidator for this purpose, if required. The Official Liquidator shall also endeavour to prepare the complete inventory of all the assets of the respondent-company when the same are taken over; and the premises in which they are kept shall be sealed by him. At the same time, he may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value all assets to facilitate the process of winding up. It will also be open to the Official Liquidator to seek police help in the discharge of his duties, if he considers it appropriate to do so. The Official Liquidator to take all further steps that may  be necessary in this regard to protect the premises and assets of the respondent-company.”

10]              Thus, it is very much clear that the opposite party – Company is working under official liquidator and the Managing Director of the Company ceased to act in that capacity.

11]              So far as locus-standi of Sh. Deepak Gupta, Former Director of the Company is concerned, we are of the view that although he claims to be a former Director yet after passing of order dated 05.07.2018, Annexure RP-4, he has no locus-standi to file this application. As such, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed at this score.

12]              However, when it has come to our notice as well as notice of the Ld. District Commission and also in the notice of the complainants that order dated 05.07.2018, Annexure RP-4 has been passed, then, it is appropriate that the official liquidator be made a party. In this view of the matter, we direct the complainants to amend the complaint and implead the official liquidator as a party.

13]              Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed with above-said observations.

14]              Resultantly, we direct the Ld. District Commission to afford an opportunity to the complainants to amend the complaint and proceed in accordance with law.

15]              Complete record along with certified copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Commission forthwith.

16]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Copy of order be also sent to the parties/Counsel through email/whatsapp.

Pronounced.

23.12.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

[ RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER