Indostar Capital Fin. Ltd. Thr. ... vs Jyoti Shyam Dahare And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 416 Bom

                           -1-             6.WP.364.2022.Judgment.odt



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2022

PETITIONER           :      Indostar Capital Finance Limited,
                            through its Senior Vice President, Mr.
                            Kirtikant Kaviju, Aged about 48 years,
                            Occ.- Service, office at One India Bul
                            Centre, 20th Floor, Tower 2-A, Jupital
                            Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat
                            Marg, Mumbai 400 013.

                                  //VERSUS//

RESPONDENTS          : 1. Jyoti Shyam Dahare, Aged about 42
                          years, Occ.- Business, Resident of 77,
                          Gitanjali Society, Beltarodi Road, Near
                          Kachore Laws, Nagpur 440015.

                         2. India Infoline Finance Limited,
                            through its Manager, office at12, A-10,
                            13th Floor, Parini Crisenzo, C-38, C-
                            39, G-Block, Behind MCA, Bandra
                            Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai
                            400051.

                         3. India Infoline Finance Limited,
                            through Vidharbha Head Shri Swapnil
                            Randive, aged about 45 years, Occ.-
                            Service, office at 1st Floor, Naidu
                            Chambers, Near Chawan Traders,
                            West High Court Road, Dharampeth,
                            Nagpur.

**************************************************************
  Mr. Alok H. Daga, Advocate for the Petitioner.
  Mr. Akhtar N. Ansari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
**************************************************************
                             -2-            6.WP.364.2022.Judgment.odt



                  CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is

heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

Respondent No.1 though served, has failed to appear before this

Court.

02] The petitioner-Company has questioned the

correctness and legality of the order dated 27 th July, 2021, passed

by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagpur

(for short "Consumer Forum"), whereby the Presiding Officer of

the Consumer Forum was pleased to allow the application made by

the respondent No.1 for addition of the petitioner as party

respondent No.3 in the execution proceeding being M.A. No.1 of

2020. The Consumer Forum vide order dated 9th June, 2017 had

allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 and granted

certain reliefs. In the execution proceeding, the respondent Nos.2

and 3 made a statement with regard to the transfer of the portfolio

of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In view of this statement made by

the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the respondent No.1 applied for

addition of the petitioner herein as party respondent No.3 in the

-3- 6.WP.364.2022.Judgment.odt

execution proceeding. In the application before Consumer Forum,

the respondent No.1 stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 got

merged in the petitioner herein and, therefore, the petitioner

herein was the necessary party for the purpose of the execution of

the order passed in favour of the respondent No.1.

03] The learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3

submitted that the merger as sought to be contended by

respondent No.1 has not taken place. Learned advocate submitted

that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have simply stated about dealings of

portfolio and the vehicle business only. The respondent Nos.2 and

3 contested the execution application on merits. It is to be noted

that the Consumer Forum without verifying the correct factual

position, by one line order, allowed the application in the absence

of any material to establish that the merger as sought to be asserted

by the respondent No.1 had actually occurred. There was no need

to make the petitioner herein as party respondent No.3 in the

execution proceeding. No material has been placed on record

either before the Consumer Forum or before this Court to justify

the contention that the merger as stated in the application made by

the respondent No.1 indeed occurred. Therefore, in my view, the

Consumer Forum ought to have taken note of this fact. The

-4- 6.WP.364.2022.Judgment.odt

petitioner in view of the above position was not a necessary party,

being liable to satisfy the order passed in favour of the respondent

No.1 on 9th June, 2017.

04] In view of this position, the order cannot be sustained.

The petition is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the

Consumer Forum dated 27th July, 2021 is quashed and set aside.

05] As a result thereof, the application made by the

respondent No.1 to add the petitioner as respondent No.3 in the

execution proceeding, stands rejected.

06] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

Vijay

Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR Personal Assistant to Hon'ble JUDGE Signing Date:13.01.2023 18:45