Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Verma vs Ravi Jatwani on 16 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2113
1 Writ Petition No. 13952 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13952 of 2024
MANISH VERMA
Versus
RAVI JATWANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shekhar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Abhay Pratap Singh- Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Ankit Saxena- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to send for the
record of the impugned action.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Certiorari of quashing the order dated 18/04/2024
(Annexure-P/4) issued by Respondent No.4 in Execution case
No.19/2019.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2113
proper in view of aforesaid facts and grounds may kindly be allowed
in favor of Petitioner.
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner is one of the Ex-Directors of the
company, namely, M/s Lakshya Realities Pvt. Ltd. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a
complaint case for redressal of their grievances against M/s Lakshya Realities
Pvt. Ltd. and contended that both respondents No.1 and 2 are ready to purchase a
Plot No.82 area 1452 Sq. Ft. at the rate of Rs.415/- per square foot, apart from
other expenses. It was further claimed that respondents No.1 and 2 have paid
Rs.1,01,000/- by cheque towards booking amount and letter of allotment was also
issued and in Condition No.3 of the said letter it was mentioned that after
receiving 25% of the total amount i.e. 1,50,645/- sale agreement would be
executed. Respondents No.1 and 2 have paid further amount of Rs.49,645/- on
04.05.2012 and requested for execution of sale agreement but on one pretext or
the other respondent No.3 refused to execute the sale agreement. Although
respondents No.1 and 2 have already paid 48% of the total amount, in spite of that
respondent No.3 vide letter dated 27.11.2012 demanded remaining amount of
Rs.2,21,548/- and in default it was observed that penalty would be imposed or the
booking would be cancelled. It was alleged that inspite of the fact that
respondents No.1 and 2 supplied a copy of the bank approval to respondent No.3,
even then the booking was cancelled. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed Complaint
Case No.165/2013 against respondent No.3 through petitioner. It is the case of
petitioner that District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, Bench-2,
by order dated 06.07.2018 passed in Case No.165/2013 has directed as under:
20- vr% ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr ;g ifjokn irz vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs
gq, foi{kh dks fuEukuqlkj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS &
¼i½ foi{kh vkns'k dh izfr izkfIr fnukad ls 2 ekg dh vof/k ds vanj]
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2113
ifjoknh dks cqd fd;s x, Hkw[k.M dh jkf'k 2]90]645@& :- jkf'k izkfIr
fnukad ls vnk;xh fnukad rd 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr vnk djsa A
¼ii½ foi{kh vkns'k dh izfr izkfIr fnukad ls 2 ekg dh vof/k ds vanj]
ifjoknh dks ekufld] vkfFkZd ,oa 'kkjhfjd {kfr gsrq izfrdj ds :i esa
20]000@& :- vnk djsa A
¼iii½ foi{kh vkns'k dh izfr izkfIr fnukad ls 2 ekg dh vof/k ds vanj]
ifjoknh dks ifjoknO;; gsrq 5]000@& vnk djsa A
3. It is submitted that now, in execution of aforesaid order, arrest warrant has
been issued against petitioner. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by
order dated 09.06.2017 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, respondent no.3 was struck off from the Register of Companies and the
said Company was dissolved. The matter is before liquidator and, therefore, the
Executing Court could not have issued warrant of arrest against the applicant. It is
submitted that once the Company was already dissolved, then even the order
could not be passed by the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Bhopal.
4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent nos.
1 and 2 and it is submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court
in the case of Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) Vs. M/s
Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4480-4481 of
2023 the arrest warrant has rightly been issued and inspite of the fact that the
company might have been struck off from the register of companies but still the
order passed by the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, is
executable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2113
6. A specific question was put to counsel for petitioner that as to whether the
District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, Bench-2, was ever
informed about the order dated 09.06.2017 passed by Government of India,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs or not? It was fairly conceded that the District
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, Bench-2 was never informed. It
is really surprising that although the order dated 09.06.2017 was already passed
by the Central Government and on that date complaint was pending before the
District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, Bench-2, but petitioner
did not bring it to the notice of the forum and ultimately the District Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum, Bhopal, Bench-2 passed the final order on
06.07.2018. It was obligatory on the part of petitioner to bring the order dated
09.06.2017 to the notice of District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Bhopal, Bench-2 but for the reasons best known to him, he did not bring it to the
notice of said forum. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ansal Crown Heights
(supra), has held as under:
10. Thus, this Court approved the view taken in the case of P.
Mohanraj (supra) that notwithstanding moratorium, the liability, if any,
of the directors/officers will continue. This Court, therefore, permitted
the appellants to expressly proceed against the promoters of the
company though there was a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC
affecting the company.
11. Therefore, we are of the view that only because there is a
moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot
be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the opposite party
Nos. 2 to 9 (the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) for execution, provided that
they are otherwise liable to abide by and comply with the order, which
is passed against the company. The protection of the moratorium will
not be available to the directors/officers of the company.
7. Furthermore, respondent No.3 was made a party before the forum through
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2113
petitioner. It was not the case of petitioner that he was not the Director who is
responsible for day-to-day business of respondent No.3. It is well established
principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. If
petitioner was of the view that he is not vicariously responsible for the acts of
Company then the said question should have been raised before the forum and
that cannot be decided by the Executing Court. Furthermore, in the light of order
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ansal Crown Heights (supra) it is
clear that even in the case of moratorium liability of the Director/Officer will
continue. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no case is made out warranting interference. The Executing Court has rightly
issued warrant of arrest against petitioner on account of non-compliance of order
dated 06.07.2018 passed by District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Bhopal, Bench-2, Bhopal in Case No.165/2013.
8. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order dated 29.05.2024 is hereby vacated.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
