LEGAL APPROACH
Ensuring Legal Services

 
  Home >>  
  About Us >>  
  Judgments >>  
  Areas of Practice >>  
  Cause Lists >>  
  Bare Acts >>  
  Court Websites >>  
  Formats >>  
  Submit Your Query >>  
  Contact us >>  
  Blog >>  
  Disclaimer >>  
M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lalit Kumar Dhiman dated 2014-09-10

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                               NEW DELHI       

 

APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 12 OF 2014

 (From the order dated 13.05.2014 in EA No.14/2014 in CC No. 63/2013 of the State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, UT Chandigarh)

With

IA/4824/2014 (Stay)

 

 

 

 

1.       M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd.

          SCO No. 123-124, 3rd Floor,

          Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017

          Through its Directors Mr. Tejinder Singh                 

2.       M/s. Sukham Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

          SCO No. 123-124, 3rd Floor,

          Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017

          Through its Directors Mr. Tejinder Singh

3.       Mr. Tejinder Singh, Director

          M/s. Sukham Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and

          M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

          SCO No. 123-124, 3rd Floor,

          Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017

 

4.       Mrs. Paramjot Kaur, Director

          M/s. Sukham Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and

          M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

          SCO No. 123-124, 3rd Floor,

          Sector 17-C,

Chandigarh – 160 017                      …Appellants/Opp. Parties (OP)

 Versus

Lalit Kumar Dhiman

S/o Sh. Jai Prakash,

House No. 8A/1, Model Town,

Patiala (Punjab) – 147 001                       …Respondent/Complainant (OP)

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Appellant            :    Mr. Dinesh Madra, Advocate

For the Res. No.1            :    Mr. Nikhil Thakur, Advocate

                               

PRONOUNCED ON 10th September,  2014

O R D E R

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

          This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Execution Application No. 14/2014 in Complaint No. 63 of 2013 – LalitKumar Dhiman Vs. M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, Mrs. Paramjot Kaur and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Directors of OP/appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

 

 

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed Complaint No. 63 of 2013 against OP/Appellant No. 1 & 2 before State Commission and learned State Commission vide ex-parte order dated 26.11.2013 allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.21,60,120/- and further awarded Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Complainant filed Execution Application before State  Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned ex-parte order dated 13.5.2014 sentenced OPs as mentioned above against which, this appeal has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

 

4.      During pendency of appeal, complainant filed affidavit dated 15.7.2014 in which it was submitted that matter has been compromised and Rs.28,00,000/- vide Bank Draft dated 14.7.2014 has been paid by OP to complainant towards full and final settlement and nothing remains due in the Execution Application. Respondent again filed affidavit dated 25.8.2014 asserting same facts and submitted that as execution has fully been satisfied, respondent has no objection if impugned order passed by learned State Commission is set aside.

 

5.      Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as matter has been settled between the parties and more than due amount has already been paid by appellant to respondent, impugned order be set aside.  Learned Counsel for the respondent again admitted receipt of payment and submitted that in the light of compromise, impugned order be set aside.

 

6.      As matter has been settled between the parties and due amount has already been paid by appellant to respondent and nothing remains due to be satisfied in Execution Application, it would be appropriate to set aside order of sentence and fine passed by State Commission against appellants.

 

7.      Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Execution Application No. 14/2014 in Complaint No. 63 of 2013 – Lalit Kumar Dhiman Vs. M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside, as matter has been settled between the parties and Execution Petition stands satisfied.

………………Sd/-……………

( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

 

k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


© 2008-2014 Legal Approach