Delhi High Court
Deepak Mowar vs Harvinder Singh Sahota on 26 May, 2025
$~60to63,70to72, 74 and 79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025
+ CM(M) 982/2025 & CM APPL. 32637-32639/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
HARVINDER SINGH SAHOTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
61
+ CM(M) 983/2025 & CM APPL. 32681-32683/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
PARAMJIT SINGH NEOTE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma, Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
62
+ CM(M) 984/2025 & CM APPL. 32684-32686/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
BALWANT SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified CM(M) 982/2025 & 1
Digitally Signed other connected matters
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:26.05.2025
18:56:27
63
+ CM(M) 985/2025 & CM APPL. 32689-32691/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates
versus
RAJINDER SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
70
+ CM(M) 992/2025 & CM APPL. 32756-32758/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
KULVINDER SINGH SAHOTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
71
+ CM(M) 993/2025 & CM APPL. 32951-32953/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
PARAMJIT SINGH NEOTE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
72
+ CM(M) 994/2025 & CM APPL. 32760-32762/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified CM(M) 982/2025 & 2
Digitally Signed other connected matters
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:26.05.2025
18:56:27
versus
ARCHANA SINGH & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: None.
74
+ CM(M) 996/2025 & CM APPL. 32765-32767/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
JASWANT KAUR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
79
+ CM(M) 1001/2025 & CM APPL. 32853-32856/2025
DEEPAK MOWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Bharti with Mr. Rishabh
Nigam, Advocates.
versus
JOGINDER SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gobind Malhotra with Mr. Lovish
Sharma , Mr. Rehan, Mr. Gurpeet
Singh and Ms. Namrata Malhotra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The issue raised in all the nine present petitions is, more or less, similar.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby learned District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has issued
non-bailable warrants against him in different matters.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no
intention to run away from the execution proceedings but according to him,
Digitally Signed other connected matters
the complaint was, merely, against the Company of which the Judgment
Debtor was stated to be a Director at one point of time. He submits that even
the execution petition had been filed against JD Company only and it was
only during the proceedings of the case, relying upon general directions given
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 507, the learned District Commission has chosen to issue
non-bailable warrants, without any advance notice.
4. It is informed that the abvoesaid orders, whereby warrants were issued
against the petitioner, were challenged by the petitioner by filing appeals and
such appeals were taken up by the learned State Commission on 13.05.2025.
Though, notice has been issued to the opposite side, there is no reference with
respect to the urgent relief sought by the appellant whereby it requested for
stay of non-bailable warrants.
5. It is submitted that all such appeals, have been adjourned by the learned
State Commission for 27.08.2025 and if, in the interregnum, the petitioners
are arrested, pursuant to execution of non-bailable warrants, all such appeals
would render infructuous.
6. The Court has gone through the order dated 13.05.2025 and it appears
that perhaps the urgency was not appropriately cited before the learned State
Commission.
7. Since the appeals have already been preferred before the learned State
Commission, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to seek appropriate
remedy before the learned Appellate Commission.
8. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondents, appears in all matters
(except CM(M) 994/2025).
9. In all fairness, he also submits that he would not take any step for the
Digitally Signed other connected matters
purposes of collection of such NBWs from the learned District Commission
for a period of three days from today.
10. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner sought
liberty to move application(s) before learned State Commission, seeking early
hearing for the purposes of consideration of the abvoesaid relief regarding
stay/recall of the warrants, within two days from today.
11. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of with liberty to
petitioner to move appropriate applications seeking early hearing and urgent
relief before learned State Commission.
12. Let any such application be moved within two days from today, in all
such appeals. The details of such matters are as under:-
ITEM DATE OF E.A. NO. DATE OF E.A. NO. (Before
NO. ORDER OF (Before District ORDER OF State
DISTRICT Commission) STATE Commission)
COMMISSION COMMISSION
60 16.04.2025 EA/142/2023 13.05.2025 EA-32/25
61 16.04.2025 EA/144/2023 13.05.2025 EA-31/25
62 16.04.2025 EA/40/2023 13.05.2025 EA-30/25
63 16.04.2025 EA/39/2023 13.05.2025 EA-34/25
70 16.04.2025 EA/143/2023 13.05.2025 EA-33/25
71 16.04.2025 EA/145/2023 13.05.2025 EA-27/25
72 09.04.2025 EA/79/2023 13.05.2025 EA-26/25
74 16.04.2025 EA/41/2023 13.05.2025 EA-28/25
79 16.04.2025 EA/128/2023 13.05.2025 EA-35/25
13. The warrants in question be kept in abeyance for a period of three days
to be reckoned from today.
Digitally Signed other connected matters
14. It is, however, clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion
with respect to the order passed by learned District Commission and it will be
entirely up to the learned State Commission, where the abovesaid appeals are
pending adjudication, to take appropriate decision. However, keeping in mind
the nature of the urgency involved, this Court expects that, as and when, any
such application is moved, the learned State Commission takes up the same
and deals with the same in accordance with law.
15. All the petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
16. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
17. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2025/ sw/SS
Digitally Signed other connected matters
