CASTROL INDIA LTD vs Neerja

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 838/2012 - Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neerja & Ors. by which, the stay order passed in favour of the petitioner was not extended.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.1 filed complaint before District Forum and alleged that complainant was holding 3476 equity shares of OP-1/Petitioner. As per offer letter for purchase of shares by OP-1, complainant submitted the form of acceptance duly filled along with duly signed transfer form and share certificates, but complainant ''s offer was rejected. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum for grant of difference of share price @ 150/- per share on 1745 equity shares. OPs resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,218/- along with 12% p.a. interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges. Petitioner filed appeal along with stay application before learned State Commission and learned State Commission after hearing petitioner on stay application, vide order dated 10.10.2012, stayed operation of order of District Forum dated 24.5.2012 till next date and case was adjourned to 21.1.2013. On 21.1.2013, none appeared for the petitioner, but respondent-1 appeared in person and State Commission directed petitioner to furnish correct latest address of Respondent-2 within 7 days and thereafter to issue notice to Respondent-2. Service on Respondent-3 was presumed and matter was adjourned to 22.7.2013. It appears that learned District Forum in the light of orders dated 10.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 passed by the learned State Commission, stayed execution proceedings and adjourned execution proceedings to 29.7.2013. It appears that in the meantime, warrant of attachment was issued for recovery and in such circumstances, petitioner moved an application before learned State Commission and learned State Commission passed following impugned order: "A prayer is made by the Counsel for the appellant to extend stay order dated 10.10.2012, but we do not find any force in the prayer of the Counsel for the appellant in as much as the direction of the State Commission as per order dated 21.3.2013 (21.01.2013) has not been followed by which the appellant was directed to file correct address of the respondent no.2. Prayer rejected. Now the correct address of respondent no. 2 has been filed. Issue notice on the fresh address furnished by the appellant, under the registered cover with AD, for the date already fixed in this case for filing reply and for further orders "

againstwhich, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Auth. Rep. of Respondent No.1 and the Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after furnishing correct and latest address of Respondent-2; though, not in time, learned State Commission has committed error in not extending stay order dated 10.10.2012; though, it was impliedly extended upto 22.7.2013 by order dated 21.1.2013; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and stay order may be extended upto 22.7.2013, the date already fixed for hearing the matter before the State Commission. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative of Respondent no. 1 submitted that revision petition be dismissed, as it is not maintainable as well as time barred and Courts should not grant ex-parte interim stay. Learned Counsel for the Respondents no. 2&3 submitted that they have no objection in allowing revision petition.

PERUSAL of record reveals that petitioner filed appeal before learned State Commission along with stay application and learned State Commission vide order dated 10.10.2012 stayed operation of order of District Forum till next date i.e. 21.1.2013. On 21.1.2013, as notice issued to Respondent-2 was received back unserved, learned State Commission directed petitioner to furnish correct and latest address within 7 days and thereafter to issue notice to Respondent-2. On that date, Respondent-1 filed reply against the stay order. Matter was adjourned to 22.7.2013. It is true that order of 10.10.2012 was not extended by learned State Commission expressly, but at the same time, stay was not vacated and it appears that inadvertently, the extension of stay order was not recorded in order sheet dated 21.1.2013, but it can be inferred that impliedly stay order was extended upto 22.7.2013 and it was withdrawn on 21.5.2013. Order sheet dated 22.4.2013 in execution application filed before District Forum runs as under: "JD has filed an application along with the copy of the orders dated 10.10.2012 and 21.01.2013 and which disclosed the operation of the order under execution was stayed by Hon ''ble State Commission and next date of hearing is fixed as 22.07.2013. Therefore, the proceeding of this execution application stands stayed. Now, for awaiting of the further order therefrom, it is adjourned to 29.07.2013 ".

According to this order sheet, which was drawn in presence of both the parties, it was inferred by District Forum that stay order has been extended upto 22.7.2013 and proceedings of the execution application was stayed and matter was adjourned to 29.7.2013. It appears that on the request of complainant/Respondent-1, warrant of attachment was issued. On the application of petitioner for extension of stay order, stay was not extended on account of non-filing of correct address of Respondent-2 within 7 days; though, that had been filed before State Commission, before the date of impugned order. Only on account of non-filing of fresh address of Respondent-2 within time, it was not appropriate on the part of learned State Commission to not extend stay order, which was granted on 10.10.2012 and impliedly extend on 21.1.2013.

AUTHORIZED Representative of Respondent-1 submitted that revision petition is not maintainable against interlocutory order. This submission is devoid of force. In the light of Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, National Commission can pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute, which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, which makes it clear that revision petition is maintainable before this Commission against any order passed by the State Commission in the matter pending before that.

AUTHORIZED representative of Respondent-1 further submitted that revision petition is barred by limitation. This argument is also devoid of force, as this revision petition has been filed on 23.5.2013 against the impugned order dated 21.5.2013 meaning thereby, within two days from the date of passing order. This revision petition is not against the order dated 21.1.2013; hence, revision petition is well within limitation. Authorized Representative of Respondent-1 further submitted that in the light of judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (6) SCALE - RamrameshwariDevi & Ors. Vs. NirmalaDevi & Ors., Courts should be cautious while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. We agree with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon ''ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, but this aspect is to be considered by learned State Commission, who has granted stay on 10.10.2012 and we are not to comment on grant of stay at this stage.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, impugned order passed by learned State Commission is liable to be set aside and stay order dated 10.10.2012 is to be extended till 22.7.2013, the date on which, the matter has already been fixed for hearing before State Commission.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent in Appeal No. 838/2012 - Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neerja & Ors. is allowed and impugned order dated 21.5.2013 to the extent of non-extension of stay order dated 10.10.2012 is set aside and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by learned State Commission is extended till 22.7.2013, the date on which the matter has already been fixed for hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.