Tribunals and Commissions

GAUTAM MISRA vs M/S. SUPERTECH CZAR SUITES & ORS.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 12 December 2017 · Citation: (2017) 12 NCDRC CK 0002

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Jain, M. Shreesha
CASE NUMBER
176 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 174 words
1.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that though final order in the Execution Application has still not been made by the Executing Court but the Appellant is forced to file this Appeal as certain contradictory orders are being made by the Executing Court, resulting in unwarranted delay in disposal of the Execution Application. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant may be permitted to withdraw the Appeal, but with a direction to the Executing Court to take a final decision in the Execution Application expeditiously and without granting unnecessary adjournments at the request of the Judgment Debtor.

2.

In view of the above and having regard to the fact that final order sought to be enforced was passed as far back as in the year 2015, we dismiss the Appeal as not pressed, with the request to the Executing Court to take a final decision in the Execution Application as expeditiously as practicable and, in any case, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.