Consumer Commission Should Issue Bailable Warrant Only If Party Is Not Represented At All Through Counsel Or Representative
Case: L&T Finance Ltd vs Pramod Kumar Rana and another
Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5894-5895 Of 2021
Court Observation: “Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and only in a case where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance before the National Commission deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through their authorised representative or through their counsel”
“In the present case, the allegations made by the original complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021 are yet to be considered in detail by the National Commission after giving opportunity to both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are represented through their counsel and the authorised representatives and even the Director of the original opposite party No.1 company has always remained present in person before the National Commission through video conferencing as directed. Therefore, issuance of bailable warrants and the directions issued by the National Commission directing Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of original opposite party No.2 company to be produced, was not warranted at all at this stage”
“If at all subsequently, it is found that anybody has tried to pressurize the original complainant and pressurized him to enter into settlement and any threatening visits were made to the residence of the original complainant, further order can be passed by the National Commission. It cannot be disputed that free access and unfettered right to approach/justice, as permissible by law, is inbuilt in our judicial system where rule of law prevails. Any attempt to impede or obstruct the course of justice, not to speak of exercising any coercion against anybody, who is before the court or authority in order to seek justice, cannot be lightly taken or be countenanced with. However, at the same time, the case of the complainant is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or established and proved and the opportunities are to be given to the opposite parties. It is to be noted that as such, appellant has been appearing through their counsel and their authorised representatives and even Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of original opposite party No.1 has remained present in person either through physical mode or though video conferencing”
“However, it will be open for the National Commission to require the presence of Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the appellant company, if required, in future,”
[doc id=12339]
Previous Posts
High Court Cannot Dismiss Second Appeal In Limine Without Assigning Reasons: Supreme Court
Injunction Orders Cannot Be Passed Against Third Parties Without Hearing Them: Supreme Court
Ensure Certified Copies Of Judgements Are Issued As Per Section 76 Evidence Act: Supreme Court To HC Download Judgement
Keywords
Consumer Commission, Bailable Warrant,
