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
15 paragraphs · 451 wordsRajneesh Kumar Gupta, J
This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking the following prayers :
“a.issue an appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IA/63/2026 in FA/618/2026; and/or
b. issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi issuing Warrants of Attachment against the Banker of the Petitioner in EA/128/2025; and/or
c. issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi issuing Bailable Warrants against the Bank official of Banker of the Petitioner in EA/128/2025;”
Learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that she does not want to file any reply to the present petition.
Matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard. Record perused.
Vide order dated 23rd December, 2025, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 07th November, 2025, which reads as under:
“Subject to the deposit of balance of the decretal amount with this Commission by way of FDR, the operation of the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate,- New Delhi in CC No. 274/2024 is stayed till further orders.”
Vide order dated 27th February, 2026, the aforesaid stay was vacated on account of non-compliance of the order dated 23rd December, 2025 by the petitioner/judgment debtor. The said order reads as under:
“Since the appellant has failed to comply with the order dated 23.12.2025 within time, the stay granted vide order dated 23.12.2025 stands vacated.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount, as directed vide order dated 23rd December, 2025, has already been deposited, with a delay of four (4) days.
Keeping in view the facts that the amount as ordered vide order dated 23rd December, 2025 has already been deposited and there is only a delay of four (4) days and the same is condoned. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated 07th November, 2025 of the District Commission is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal as pending before the State Commission. The present petition is disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.