advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, November 15, 2013

Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika - Deficiency in service - consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations - Executions filed - Appeal lies but not revision - On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service = M/s. Sunny Brooks -vs - Aparajitha Bhandary = published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013111410493830RP386238762010.htm

Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika - Deficiency in service - consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations - Executions filed - Appeal lies but not revision - On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service = 
The State Commission vide consent order dated 5.11.2007, directed the petitioner to comply with clause 14 of the agreement within 3 months, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid by the respondents from the date of order till realization.
5.   Thereafter, respondents filed execution petitions before the State Commission and certain execution petitions were filed before the District Forum which were ultimately transferred to the State Commission and clubbed together. 
Petitioner filed objections to the execution petition contended that it has discharged all its obligations by providing civic amenities and club house. 
Therefore, it is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the respondents. =
Section 25, 27 and 27A of the Act read as under;
      “Sec.25.   Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission

(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2)  No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
(3)  Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
     Sec.27.  Penalties
(1)  Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3)   All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
    Sec.27A   Appeal against order passed under
              Section 27 
      (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -
(a) the order made by the District Forum    to  the  State Commission;
(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
(c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

(2)     Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie  to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.
(3)     Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission :
   Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”

11.  Section 25 and 27 of the Act have been enacted for speedy enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.  These sections are in the nature of execution proceedings of the orders made by the three Redressal Agencies.  While Section 25 of the Act visualizes the enforcement of such orders by a civil process, as if they were a decree or order made by a Court of law, whereas, Section 27 of the Act confers a quasi-criminal sanction for their enforcement by way of punishment with imprisonment or imposition of monetary penalties.
12.  Since, the impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in the execution proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Act, only appeal lies against such order under Section 27A of the Act.
13.  When an equally efficacious remedy has been provided by way of appeal against the impugned order, the present revision petitions under such circumstances are not maintainable. Hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
14.  Even on merits, petitioner has no case at all for the reasons mentioned hereunder.
15.  As apparent from the record, it is quite clear that order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission has become final as no revision was filed against that order. Now in the execution proceedings, petitioner /J.D. cannot be permitted to challenge the same and introduce any new case.
16.  It is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission was a consent order and the same has attained finality. Be that as it may, petitioner in its objections dated 25.7.2008 filed in response to the Execution Petition of the Respondents/Decree Holder has categorically stated that;
“It is pertinent to state here that except the facility of the Club House, all other civic amenities have been provided and there is no deficiency of service in providing the civic amenities.”

17.  Thus, as per petitioner’s own case it did not provide the Club House which it was bound to provide within the specified period as per terms of the conditions of the agreement. However, on 26thFebruary, 2013 learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions stated before this Commission that Club House, Swimming Pool and Badminton Court have been duly constructed and sought time to file affidavit, photographs and the completion certificate. Accordingly, 6 weeks time was granted. Though petitioner had filed an affidavit, but no completion certificate to this effect has been filed till date. However, as per information dated 12.7.2013, obtained under the Right to Information Act from Bangalore Mahanagar Palika placed on record by the respondents, it is manifestly clear that; “As per the sanctioned plan, building is not constructed, the Swimming Pool is unauthorisedly constructed”. 
18.  Further, as per provisional order dated 1.6.2013, issued under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, it has been confirmed that; “Commercial building is found to have been constructed against the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and rules and byelaws”.
19.  Since, petitioner has so far not complied with the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission, hence the present revision petitions have no merit and are legally not sustainable. These petitions are nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and are totally frivolous. Consequently, we dismiss all the above noted revision petitions.
20.  No order as to cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

 

(1)      REVISION PETITION NO.3862 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 192 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus
1.    Aparajitha Bhandary
2.    Sudnya Shenava
      Both R/o No.189,
      Amarjyoti Layout, Domlur,
      Ring Road,
      Bangalore - 560 071                …..Respondents   

(2)                                           REVISION PETITION NO.3863 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 193 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)
M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                  Versus
Anusuya Y.M.
D/o Y.B. Mathumani,
No.79/8F, Sunny Brooks,
Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore 0- 560 035                    …..Respondent  

 

(3)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3864 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 194 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Anitha R. Shetty
W/o Dr. S.R. Shetty
No.186, Amarjyothi Layout,
Domlur, Bangalore                      …..Respondent  

(4)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3865 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 195 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Paul Christdas Salins
W/o Dr. S.R. Shetty
No.186, Amarjyothi Layout,
Domlur, Bangalore                      …..Respondent

(5)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3866 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 196 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

1.    Sushil Eapen
     
2.    Rekha Eapen,
      W/o Sushil Eapen
      Both R/o No.78-D,
      Sunny Brooks,
      Sarjapur Road,
      Bangalore - 560 035                …..Respondents   

(6)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3867 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 197 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Cyril Zachariah
S/o Eapen Zachariah,
R/o No.79/4,  Sunny Brooks,
Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore - 560 035                    …..Respondent   

(7)                                           REVISION PETITION NO.3868 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 198 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

1.    Geniuneness V.C. Jain
     
2.    Manju Jain,
      W/o Geniuneness V.C. Jain
      Both residing at No.C-9,
      Inderpuri,
      New Delhi – 110 012                   …..Respondents   

(8)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3869 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 199 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Sameer Gupta,
S/o Col. N.N. Gupta,
No.734, 8th B Main,
4th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore 0 560 034.                  …..Respondent   

(9)                                            REVISION PETITION NO.3870 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 200 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus
1.    Capt. Pal Pradeep
     
2.    Deepa Lal, W/o Capt. Pal Pradeep,
      Both are R/o No.201-B,
      Versova, Four Bunglow Road,
      Andheri West, Mumbai             …..Respondents   

(10)     REVISION PETITION NO.3871 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 201 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Manoj Lal
S/o Mr. Ratan Lal
R/o C-9, Indar Puri,
New Delhi                              …..Respondent   

(11)     REVISION PETITION NO.3872 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 202 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)


M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus
Rakesh Goel,
S/o Mr. S.M. Goel,
R/at T.U. 26,
Pitampura,
New Delhi -  110 034.                  …..Respondent   

(12)     REVISION PETITION NO.3873 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 203 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    Versus

Rajat Gupta
R/o No.604, 2nd Cross,
3rd Block, Karamangala,
Bangalore – 560 071                   …..Respondent   

(13)     REVISION PETITION NO.3874 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 204 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus
1.    Sanjay Jalona
     
2.    Parul Jalona
      Both are R/o No.869,
      12th Main, 3rd Block,
      Karamangala,
      Bangalore – 560 034.             …..Respondents   


(14)     REVISION PETITION NO.3875 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 205 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
              Versus

1.    Capt Pradeep Lal

2.    Mona Lal,
      Both are R/o No.869,
      12th Main, 3rd Block,
      Karamangala,
      Bangalore – 560 034.             …..Respondents

(15)     REVISION PETITION NO.3876 OF  2010

(Against the order dated 16.7.2010 in Appeal No. 206 of 2010 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

M/s. Sunny Brooks
No.99/100, Sunny Brooks,
DoddakenahalliSarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 035
Now called as Samarkhand
Property Management Private Limited
Represent Through its
Managing Director                       …. Petitioner   
                    
                    Versus

Asha L. Shetty
W/o Mr. Leeladhar Shetty
No.318, 4th Block
7th B Main,
Koramangala
Bangalore – 560 034                    …..Respondent   

BEFORE:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
     HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :  Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Senior
                      Advocate   with  MrBikas
Kar Gupta and Mr. B.M. Sudesh,       Advocates

For the Respondents
in 3863,3865, 3866 &
3867 of 2010       :  Mr. John Mathew, Advocate

                      Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate
                      with Mr. Ankur Bansal
                      Advocate for R-6,8,9,10,11 &12

                      Mr. Anil Mishra, Advocate 
                      for R-1,2 and 19
  
Pronounced on:  13th November, 2013

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
     Present revision petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party challenging impugned order dated 16.7.2010, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal Nos.192 to 206 of 2010.
2.   Brief facts are that respondents/complainants filed consumer complaints before the District Forum, Bangalore.  The complaints were contested by the petitioner.  District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaints vide order dated 9.1.2007 and directed the petitioners to provide the amenities as promised under the agreement within 3 months from the date of communication of the said order.
3.   Being not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, respondents/complainants  filed appeals before the State Commission seeking direction to pay interest as per the terms of the agreement. 
4.   The State Commission vide consent order dated 5.11.2007, directed the petitioner to comply with clause 14 of the agreement within 3 months, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid by the respondents from the date of order till realization.
5.   Thereafter, respondents filed execution petitions before the State Commission and certain execution petitions were filed before the District Forum which were ultimately transferred to the State Commission and clubbed together. Petitioner filed objections to the execution petition contended that it has discharged all its obligations by providing civic amenities and club house. Therefore, it is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the respondents. 
6.   Thereafter, District Forum on the basis of interim application (IA) filed by the respondents appointed a Court Commissioner to conduct the local investigation of the layout and directed the said Commissioner to submit his report as to whether petitioner has carried out the directions issued by the State Commission, vide its order dated 5.11.2007. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner submitted his report. Thereafter, District Forum passed order dated 2.12.2009 in the execution proceedings in which it was held ;
“In view of the forth going reasons, we are of the view that OP/JDR has not complied with the orders of the Hon'ble State Commission as such JDR is liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the amounts paid by the complainants from the date of order of the State Commission, till realization.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
OP/JDR is directed to pay interest @ 12 % p.a. on the amounts paid by the complainants/JDR from the date of order till realization in compliance of the order of theHon'ble State Commission dated 5.11.2007.”

7.   Above order of the District Forum was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission, Bangalore, which dismissed its appeal vide impugned order, observing as under;
    “We have gone through the appeal memorandum filed by the appellant/ JDR and also we have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the parties.  The point now that arises for our consideration is that whether the District Forum direction to the appellant/JDR to pay interest @ 12% per annum is correct or not?
     As stated earlier we have gone through the documents and appreciate the said documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties which includes the photographs produced by both the parties and also the report of the Commissioner.
     The counsel for the appellant /JDR argued that the Court Commissioner appointed by the District Forum is not a qualified person to inspect and submit the report. When the Court Commissioner has been appointed with the consent of both the parties, at this stage, it is not proper to contend by the appellant that the Court Commissioner is not an expert to submit such a report.
     The photographs itself clearly indicates that the roads are very zigzag, narrow and the width of the road is less than 30 ft. which is visible to the naked eye.  The appellants have not seriously disputed about the said facts.  Therefore, we do not find any perverse or illegality in the orders passed by the District Forum in the execution side.
     Though, this Commission passed the order on 5.11.2007 granting three months’ time to the appellant to provide the amenities as agreed between the parties, within three months, the appellant protract to provide the civic amenities have not fully complied.  After having heard both the parties in detail and also on consideration of the impugned order passed by the District Forum in the execution, we are of the view that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
     Appeals are dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
     The amount deposited by the appellant/OP in these appeals shall be transferred to the District Forum enabling the District Forum to pay the same to the complainants after due notice to them.”

8.   Hence, these revision petitions.
9.   We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Both parties have filed written submissions also.  We have gone through the same.
10.  At the outset, we may point out that no revision petition in the present circumstances lies, since impugned order was passed in the execution proceedings which were initiated under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as’Act’). Section 25, 27 and 27A of the Act read as under;
      “Sec.25.   Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission

(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2)  No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
(3)  Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
     Sec.27.  Penalties
(1)  Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3)   All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
    Sec.27A   Appeal against order passed under
              Section 27 
      (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -
(a) the order made by the District Forum    to  the  State Commission;
(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
(c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

(2)     Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie  to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.
(3)     Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission :
   Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”

11.  Section 25 and 27 of the Act have been enacted for speedy enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.  These sections are in the nature of execution proceedings of the orders made by the three Redressal Agencies.  While Section 25 of the Act visualizes the enforcement of such orders by a civil process, as if they were a decree or order made by a Court of law, whereas, Section 27 of the Act confers a quasi-criminal sanction for their enforcement by way of punishment with imprisonment or imposition of monetary penalties.
12.  Since, the impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in the execution proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Act, only appeal lies against such order under Section 27A of the Act.
13.  When an equally efficacious remedy has been provided by way of appeal against the impugned order, the present revision petitions under such circumstances are not maintainable. Hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
14.  Even on merits, petitioner has no case at all for the reasons mentioned hereunder.
15.  As apparent from the record, it is quite clear that order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission has become final as no revision was filed against that order. Now in the execution proceedings, petitioner /J.D. cannot be permitted to challenge the same and introduce any new case.
16.  It is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission was a consent order and the same has attained finality. Be that as it may, petitioner in its objections dated 25.7.2008 filed in response to the Execution Petition of the Respondents/Decree Holder has categorically stated that;
“It is pertinent to state here that except the facility of the Club House, all other civic amenities have been provided and there is no deficiency of service in providing the civic amenities.”

17.  Thus, as per petitioner’s own case it did not provide the Club House which it was bound to provide within the specified period as per terms of the conditions of the agreement. However, on 26thFebruary, 2013 learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions stated before this Commission that Club House, Swimming Pool and Badminton Court have been duly constructed and sought time to file affidavit, photographs and the completion certificate. Accordingly, 6 weeks time was granted. Though petitioner had filed an affidavit, but no completion certificate to this effect has been filed till date. However, as per information dated 12.7.2013, obtained under the Right to Information Act from Bangalore Mahanagar Palika placed on record by the respondents, it is manifestly clear that; “As per the sanctioned plan, building is not constructed, the Swimming Pool is unauthorisedly constructed”. 
18.  Further, as per provisional order dated 1.6.2013, issued under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, it has been confirmed that; “Commercial building is found to have been constructed against the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and rules and byelaws”.
19.  Since, petitioner has so far not complied with the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the State Commission, hence the present revision petitions have no merit and are legally not sustainable. These petitions are nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and are totally frivolous. Consequently, we dismiss all the above noted revision petitions.
20.  No order as to cost.
…………………………………….J
     (V.B. GUPTA)
      PRESIDING MEMBER                                                               

 ……………………………………………
     (REKHA GUPTA)
                     MEMBER

Sg.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.