L & T FINANCE LTD. versus PRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR. on 25 November 2021

946

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 11 S.C.R. 946

[2021] 11 S.C.R.

L & T FINANCE LTD.

A

v.

PRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 5894-5895 of 2021)

BNOVEMBER 25, 2021

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Administration of justice: Consumer complaint beforeNational Commission against original opposite party no.1 and 2 –On the date of hearing, submission made by counsel of originalCparty no.1 that matter was settled between the parties – On the nextdate of hearing, complainant made grievance that he was forcedby the representatives of the two opposite parties to sign on blankpapers and visits threatening him were made by their representativesto force him into a “settlement” – On 26.08.2021, NationalDCommission directed the directors of the two companies to appearon the next date in person, either in physical hearing or throughvideo conferencing with counsel to clarify their position with regardto these allegations – On next hearing, the director of originalopposite party no.1 appeared through video conferencing –However, on behalf of original opposite party no.2, the authorisedErepresentatives and their counsel only appeared before the NationalCommission – The director did not appear as directed – Submissionmade on his behalf that application seeking exemption fromappearance was moved which was pending in the Registry – On3.9.2021, National Commission again directed the directors of bothFthe companies to appear on next date – The director of originalopposite party no.2 again did not appear – It was pointed out thatagainst order dated 26.08.2021, a review application was filedwhich was pending – By order dated 16.9.2021, NationalCommission directed to issue bailable warrants against the directorof original opposite party no.2 and directed his production beforeGit on next date – Aggrieved original opposite party no.2 filed instantappeal – Held: The allegations made by the complainant were seriousin nature – However, at the same time, the allegations were yet to beconsidered in detail by National Commission, after giving anopportunity to the opposite parties – The opposite parties wereHrepresented through their counsels and also through their authorised representatives – No specific allegations were recorded in orderdated 26.08.2021 against the director of original opposite partyNo.2 – Even the review application against order dated 26.08.2021was pending before the Tribunal – Therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, issuance of bailable warrant was notwarranted at this stage – Bailable warrants are to be issued as alast resort and only where it is found that the opponent parties arenot cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearancedeliberately and/or they are not represented at all either throughtheir authorised representative or through their counsel – Ordersdated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 are quashed – Atthis stage, original opposite party No.2 is permitted to be representedthrough authorised representatives and through counsel – However,it will be open for the National Commission to require the presenceof the director of the appellant company, if required, in future.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: It is true that if the allegations made by the originalcomplainant recorded in order dated 26.08.2021 “to pressurizehim and giving threats to enter into settlement” are found to betrue, the same are very serious and can be said to be interferingin the administration of justice. However, at the same time, theallegations are yet to be considered in detail by the NationalCommission after giving an opportunity to the opposite parties.The opposite parties are represented through their counsel andeven through their authorised representatives, who remainedpresent before the National Commission. Even as per theallegations made by the complainant recorded in order dated26.08.2021, the representatives of the opposite companies gavethreats and forced him to enter into settlement and there wereno specific allegations against the Director of original oppositeparty No.2. Even the review application against order dated26.08.2021 is pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the factsand circumstances of the case, issuance of the bailable warrantsagainst the director of original opposite party No.2 was notwarranted at this stage. It cannot be disputed that free accessand unfettered right to approach/justice, as permissible by law, isinbuilt in our judicial system where rule of law prevails. Any ABC

DE

F

G

H

Aattempt to impede or obstruct the course of justice, not to speakof exercising any coercion against anybody, who is before thecourt or authority in order to seek justice, cannot be lightly takenor be countenanced with. However, at the same time, the case ofthe complainant is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or establishedand proved and the opportunities are to be given to the oppositeBparties. In view of that, orders dated 26.08.2021 and 03.09.2021directing the director of the appellant company to personallyremain present through physical mode or through videoconferencing and subsequent order dated 16.09.2021 issuingbailable warrants are quashed and set aside. However, it will beCopen for the National Commission to pass further order aftergiving opportunity to both the opposite parties to represent theircase on the allegations made by the original complainant recordedin order dated 26.08.2021. At this stage, the appellant-originalopposite party No.2 be permitted to be represented through hisauthorised representatives and through his counsel. However, itDwill be open for the National Commission to require the presenceof the Director of the appellant company, if required, in future.Review application to recall order dated 26.08.2021 pendingbefore the National Commission, may be heard, decided anddisposed of by the National Commission in accordance with lawEand on merits. [Paras 5.1, 6][951-C-G; 952-C-D, E-H; 953-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5894-5895 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2021 and 03.09.2021of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in ConsumerFComplaint No.1653 of 2018.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Usha Singh, Ms. Nidhi Saini, Ms. SrishtiMishra, Advs. for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGM. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned ordersdated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and the subsequent order dated 16.09.2021passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission H

(hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”) passed in ConsumerComplaint No.1653 of 2018, the original opposite party No.2 – L & TFinance Ltd. has preferred the present appeals.

2. Facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That one complaint being Consumer Complaint No.1653 of2018 filed by the respondent No.1 Pramod Kumar Rana is pending beforethe National Commission. The aforesaid complaint came up for hearingbefore the National Commission on 12.08.2021. Learned counsel forthe original opposite party No.1 – M/s. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. made a submission on the instructions that the matter has beensettled between the parties. Learned counsel for the complainantrequested for an adjournment to seek instructions in this respect. Thematter was adjourned to 26.08.2021.

2.2 The complaint was taken up for further hearing on 26.08.2021.Learned counsel appearing for the original opposite party No.1 againsubmitted on instructions that the matter has been settled between theparties. However, the complainant, who appeared in person, made agrievance that he has been pressurised/forced by the representatives ofthe two opposite parties to sign on blank papers and visits threateninghim were made to his residence by the representatives to force him intoa “settlement” which according to him is neither amicable nor voluntaryand nor equitable. The National Commission by order dated 26.08.2021directed Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of the original opposite partyNo.1 company and one Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director oforiginal opposite party No.2 company to appear in person, either inphysical hearing or through video conferencing with counsel on the nextdate of hearing to explain the situation and clarify their position withregard to the allegations made by the complainant. The matter wasadjourned to 03.09.2021.

2.3 On 03.09.2021, the said Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director ofthe original opposite party No.1 appeared through video conferencing.On behalf of original opposite party No.2, the authorised representativesand their counsel appeared before the National Commission. However,Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of the original opposite partyNo.2, who was required to appear as per previous order dated 26.08.2021,did not appear. It was submitted on his behalf that an application seekingexemption for his personal appearance had been moved, which waspending in the Registry. The National Commission directed to list the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Acase again on 16.09.2021 and directed that on that date, both Shri MukeshAggarwal and Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi shall also appear eitherpersonally or through video conferencing.

2.4 That on 16.09.2021, Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of theoriginal opposite party No.1 remained present. However, again ShriBDinanath Mohandas Dubhashi did not remain present. It was pointedout that against the order dated 26.08.2021, a review application wasfiled, which is pending. As Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Directorof the original opposite party No.2 company did not remain present, byorder dated 16.09.2021, the National Commission directed to issue bailablewarrants against Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of theCoriginal opposite party No.2 company and directed that Shri DinanathMohandas Dubhashi be produced in person before the NationalCommission on 18.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with theimpugned orders dated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021, the originalopposite party No.2 – L& T Finance Ltd. has preferred the presentDappeals.

3. Though served nobody has remained present on behalf of therespondent No.1 – original complainant.

4. We have heard Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned Advocate appearingon behalf of appellant – original opposite party No.2 company.E

5. Having gone through and perused the impugned orders passedby the National Commission, it appears that in view of the allegationsmade by the original complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021that “he has been forced by the representatives of the two oppositeparties to sign on blank papers and threatening visits were made to hisFresidence by the representatives to force him into a settlement”, theimpugned orders have been passed by the National Commission byobserving as under in the order dated 26.08.2021:- “The allegations, as have been made by the complainant, are ofserious nature and may have grave implications. This CommissionGis a lawfully created tribunal in order to adjudicate upon the issuesrelating to consumer disputes and arrive at just conclusions.Anybody and everybody who feels aggrieved and for whomredress may be provided under the Act can approach thisCommission invoking its jurisdiction as provided by law. Free accessand unfettered right to approach, as permissible by law, is inbuiltH

in the system where rule of law prevails. Any attempt to impedesuch a course, not to speak of exercising coercion against anybody,cannot be rightly taken or be countenanced with. The matterrequires explanation forthwith.”

5.1 As, on the subsequent dates, Shri Dinanath MohandasDubhashi, the Director of the original opposite party No.2 company didnot remain present, subsequent orders have been passed dated03.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 and by the order dated 16.09.2021, bailablewarrants have been issued against him by further directing that he maybe produced before the National Commission on 18.10.2021. However,it is required to be noted that all throughout the representatives of originalopposite party No.2 company and their counsel remained present beforethe National Commission. It is true that if the allegations made by theoriginal complainant recorded in the order dated 26.08.2021 “to pressurizehim and giving threats to enter into settlement” are found to be true, thesame are very serious and can be said to be interfering in theadministration of justice. However, at the same time, the allegations areyet to be considered in detail by the National Commission after giving anopportunity to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are representedthrough their counsel and even through their authorised representatives,who remained present before the National Commission. It is also requiredto be noted that even as per the allegations made by the complainantrecorded in the order dated 26.08.2021, the representatives of the oppositecompanies gave threats and forced him to enter into settlement andthere were no specific allegations against the Director of original oppositeparty No.2 – Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi. Be that it may, eventhe review application against the order dated 26.08.2021 is pendingbefore the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, issuance of the bailable warrants against Shri Dinanath MohandasDubhashi, the Director of original opposite party No.2 was not warrantedat this stage. Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and onlyin a case where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperatingat all and that they are avoiding appearance before the NationalCommission deliberately and/or they are not represented at all eitherthrough their authorised representative or through their counsel. In thepresent case, the allegations made by the original complainant recordedin the order dated 26.08.2021 are yet to be considered in detail by theNational Commission after giving opportunity to both the opposite parties.The opposite parties are represented through their counsel and the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aauthorised representatives and even the Director of the original oppositeparty No.1 company has always remained present in person before theNational Commission through video conferencing as directed. Therefore,issuance of bailable warrants and the directions issued by the NationalCommission directing Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director oforiginal opposite party No.2 company to be produced, was not warrantedBat all at this stage. If at all subsequently, it is found that anybody hastried to pressurize the original complainant and pressurized him to enterinto settlement and any threatening visits were made to the residence ofthe original complainant, further order can be passed by the NationalCommission. It cannot be disputed that free access and unfettered rightCto approach/justice, as permissible by law, is inbuilt in our judicial systemwhere rule of law prevails. Any attempt to impede or obstruct the courseof justice, not to speak of exercising any coercion against anybody, whois before the court or authority in order to seek justice, cannot be lightlytaken or be countenanced with. However, at the same time, the case ofthe complainant is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or established andDproved and the opportunities are to be given to the opposite parties. It isto be noted that as such, appellant has been appearing through theircounsel and their authorised representatives and even Shri MukeshAggarwal, Director of original opposite party No.1 has remained presentin person either through physical mode or though video conferencing.E6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theorders dated 26.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 directing Shri DinanathMohandas Dubhashi, Director of the appellant company to personallyremain present through physical mode or through video conferencingand the subsequent order dated 16.09.2021 issuing bailable warrants Fagainst him are quashed and set aside. However, as observedhereinabove, it will be open for the National Commission to pass furtherorder after giving opportunity to both the opposite parties to representtheir case on the allegations made by the original complainant recordedin the order dated 26.08.2021. At this stage, the appellant herein – original opposite party No.2 be permitted to be represented through his authorisedGrepresentatives and through his counsel. However, it will be open for theNational Commission to require the presence of Shri Dinanath MohandasDubhashi, Director of the appellant company, if required, in future. It isreported that a review application to review or recall the order dated26.08.2021 is pending before the National Commission. Therefore, now,Hthe same may be heard, decided and disposed of by the National Commission in accordance with law and on merits without being in anyway influenced by any of the observations made in the present order. Itis also made clear that we have not expressed anything in favour ofeither of the parties on the allegations made by the original complainantrecorded in the order dated 26.08.2021.

Present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral

Appeals partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H