Delhi High Court
Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. vs Col. Karan Bhagat on 15 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005654
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2022
+ CM(M) 1381/2022 & CM APPL. 53465/2022
TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
COL. KARAN BHAGAT ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr.
Ankit Khera, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Despite directions passed on 12.12.2022 Court Notice could not be
served upon Ms. Vandana S. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent before the NCDRC ('the Commission') for want of address.
2. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that as directed, an email dated 14.12.2022 at 03:58 PM, attaching
therewith, a copy of the instant petition, was served upon Ms. Vandan S.
Bhandari at '[email protected]' and that it has not bounced
back.
3. Copy of the email showing service sent by Ms. Agnihotri, is taken
on record.
4. Despite information being shared with the counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005654
respondent, neither the counsel nor the respondent appeared today.
5. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 25.10.2022,
whereby the learned Commission had, while granting adjournment on the
request of the proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioner,
directed that the petitioner deposits the entire awarded amount with the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('SCDRC'), Delhi,
within two weeks from the date of the impugned order.
6. Ms. Agnihotri submits that the Commission while granting
adjournment, had directed the deposit of the entire awarded amount
overlooking the order dated 28.12.2021, whereby the execution
proceedings in Execution Application No. 95/2021 pending before the
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was
directed to remain stayed without passing any additional order in respect
of the amount deposit.
7. She further submits that in case the Commission was of the opinion
to direct the petitioner herein, to make any deposit, it was incumbent upon
the Commission to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to address
arguments on such deposit.
8. Ms. Agnihotri submits that a vital right, which arose in favour of the
petitioner, has been denied resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the opinion
that in case the Commission was of the considered opinion, that any such
amount of the decree ought to have been deposited, the provisions akin to
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, 1908 ought to have been undertaken and the
petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of hearing before
passing any such order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005654
10. In view of the above, no prejudice would be caused to the
respondent in case the impugned order dated 25.10.2022, only to the
extent where the petitioner has been directed to deposit the entire decretal
amount within two weeks from that day, is set aside, with a request to the
Commission to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to address
arguments on this issue.
11. It is informed that there is a likelihood of the Commission taking up
the matter for final hearing soon. In such a case, the Commission may take
up the issue with respect to the deposit at the time of final hearing of the
appeal bearing First Appeal No. 752/2021.
12. In view of the above directions, the petition along with pending
application is disposed of with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2022/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
13:41:12
