Delhi High Court
Pranav Ansal vs Priti Pal Singh Ahuja Through Its Legal ... on 21 May, 2025
$~54&56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21st May, 2025
+ CM(M) 947/2025, CM APPL. 31074/2025 & CM APPL. 31075/2025
PRANAV ANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Malak Bhatt with Ms. Neeha
Nagpal and Mr. Saahil Bahety,
Advocates.
versus
PRITI PAL SINGH AHUJA THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIRS
.....Respondent
Through: None.
56
+ CM(M) 949/2025, CM APPL. 31078/2025 & CM APPL. 31079/2025
SUSHIL ANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Malak Bhatt with Ms. Neeha
Nagpal and Mr. Saahil Bahety,
Advocates.
versus
PRITI PAL SINGH AHUJA THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIRS
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Both the petitions are being taken up together as the grievance raised by
the petitioners, is, more or less, similar.
2. The impugned order is dated 01.05.2025 and has been passed by ld.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as
District Commission) while taking up Execution Petition registered as EX
No. 84/2024. Such order reads as under:-
"01.05.2025
EA/84/2024
Pr. Counsel for DH
Counsel for JD
Digitally Signed CM(M) 947/2025& CM(M) 949/2025 1
Present execution has been filed to execute the order dated
15.01.2024.
No payment has been brought today. In view of the directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal nos. 3640-3642
of 2025 titled "Periyanunal (Dead) through LRS & Ors Vs
Rajamani and Anr. Etc." dated 06.03.2025, nonbailable
waurants be issued against the director of JD Shahzad Ahmad,
Ashish Sharma, Pranav Aansal, Vikas Jain, Sanchit Jain,
Rishab Jain, Abdul Soni, Naresh Gupta, Sandeep Kohli &
Anoop Sethi for 16.05.2025 through SHO concerned."
3. It is informed that the matter was again taken up by learned District
Commission on 16.05.2025 and perhaps fresh non-bailable warrants have
been issued for 27.05.2025. It is, however, submitted that order has yet not
been uploaded on the website of District Commission.
4. According to learned counsel for petitioners- Mr. Pranav Ansal and Mr.
Sushil Ansal, the Execution Petition had been filed against M/s Ansal
Hightech Townships Ltd./JD Company only.
5. It is submitted that the complaint was also filed against the abovesaid
Company only and the final order is also against such company.
6. No other individual, including any Director, was ever a part in
complaint and, therefore, not judgment debtor either and, therefore, it is not,
at all, clear as to on what basis, learned Commission has issued non-bailable
warrants against them.
7. Undoubtedly, as per directions contained in Periyammal v. V.
Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, the execution petition needs to be
fast-tracked and has to be decided within a period of six months, but at the
same time, it does not mean that, merely, because no payment has been made
by the concerned JD Company, the Executing Court, without any prior notice,
can issue non-bailable warrants against its Directors.
Digitally Signed CM(M) 947/2025& CM(M) 949/2025 2
8. It is apprised that no application under Order XXI Rule 41 (2) CPC was
moved either. It is also apprised that Mr. Pranav Ansal was never a Director in
the JD Company.
9. It is also supplemented that the name of Mr. Sushil Ansal is, though,
conspicuously, missing in order dated 01.05.2025, as per the information
available with the petitioner, the warrants have also been prepared against Mr.
Sushil Ansal, without there being any corresponding order in this regard.
10. None appears on behalf of respondent/decree holder, despite advance
notice.
11. Fact remains, during course of the arguments, learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that he has no intention to avoid the execution
proceedings and would ensure that both the petitioners appear before the
learned District Commission on next date of hearing which is stated to be
27.05.2025.
12. It is also submitted that, though, petitioner Mr. Sushil Ansal is eighty
five years old, he would still appear before the learned District Commission
on said date and would also make request for his exemption from personal
appearance while undertaking that his counsel would render full assistance
and corporation to the learned District Commission.
13. It is also submitted that, even otherwise, since the decree was against
JD Company, the learned District Commission could not have issued
warrants against its Directors in the manner in which it has been done, without
their being any prior notice of any kind whatsoever.
14. Be that as it may, since an assurance has been given today that both the
abovesaid petitioners would appear before the learned District Commission
on 27.05.2025, the present petition is disposed of with the directions that such
Digitally Signed CM(M) 947/2025& CM(M) 949/2025 3
warrants are recalled.
15. Once they appear before the learned District Commission, it will be
upto the learned District Commission to consider any application moved by
them and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
16. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the impugned
order was challenged by him, by filing an appeal before the learned Delhi
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, since they did
not get any early date of hearing there and since the warrants were looming
large on their head, they were compelled to file present petitions. It is
submitted that in view of the abovesaid relief granted to them, the petitioners
would also withdraw their such appeals. Let these be withdrawn accordingly.
17. Both the petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
18. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2025/sw/PB
Digitally Signed CM(M) 947/2025& CM(M) 949/2025 4
