[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushma Buildtech Limited vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 20 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
121 CWP-6029-2026
Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED ...Petitioners
Versus
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH AND ORS. ...Respondents
And
Sr. Case No. Petitioner Respondents
No.
2. CWP-6048-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
3. CWP-6099-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
4. CWP-6157-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
5. CWP-6158-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
6. CWP-6179-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
7. CWP-6199-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
8. CWP-6159-2026 Sushma Buildtech State Consumer Disputes
Limited Redressal Commission
Chandigarh and Ors.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Anand Chibbar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate,
Mr. Vishesh Jain, Advocate and
Ms. Aarzoo Soni, Advocate
for the petitioners
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 18:34:38 :::
CWP-6029-2026 and connected cases -2-
Mr. Ankush Chowdhary, Advocate for
Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,
with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this
common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are
borrowed from CWP-6029-2026
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure
P-5) whereby State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Chandigarh (for short 'State Commission') in Execution Application has
attached its entire project and bank accounts.
3. An agreement dated 07.03.2015 was executed between
petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant for allotment of an
apartment. The complainant filed an application under Section 35 of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short '2019 Act') before State
Commission. A bunch of complaints was allowed and petitioner vide
order dated 18.10.2024 was directed to refund entire amount along with
interest and compensation. The complainant filed execution application
seeking enforcement of order dated 18.10.2024. The State Commission
vide order dated 26.08.2025 ordered to send notice of execution
application for 01.10.2025. The notice was received back with a report
'office shifted and left'. The State Commission did not issue fresh notice
and assumed that service is complete. The State Commission proceeded
2 of 4
CWP-6029-2026 and connected cases -3-
ex parte and attached entire project of the petitioner. The State
Commission vide order dated 04.02.2026 has further ordered to attach
petitioner's bank accounts.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that to
show its bona fide, the petitioner is ready to pay 50% of principal amount
within four months in two equal installments. The State Commission has
attached its project as well as bank account, thus, it cannot work and
generate revenue to discharge liability arising out of orders passed by
State Commission. There are 4000 people in the housing project
maintained by petitioner.
5. On being confronted with aforesaid statement, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that respondents have no
objection to de-freezing of bank account if payments are actually made as
offered.
6. In the wake of statement of both sides, the instant petitions
stand disposed of in following terms:-
i. The petitioner shall pay 25% of principal amount
within two months from today;
ii. The petitioner shall further pay 25% of principal
amount making it 50% of principal amount within four
months from today;
iii. The petitioner would be free to deal with project under
attachment;
iv. The petitioner would be free to operate its bank
accounts; and
3 of 4
CWP-6029-2026 and connected cases -4-
v. If the petitioner fails to comply with its commitment,
its action would be treated as contempt of Court and
proceedings under Article 215 of Constitution of India
read with Contempt of Court Act would be initiated
against Directors of the Company.
vi. The parties with respect to remaining amount i.e. over
and above 50% of principal amount would appear
before State Commission on 06.05.2026 i.e. date
already fixed by State Commission. The parties would
be free to raise their grievance before State
Commission.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
March 20, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
