The Supreme Court questioned the NCDRC members’ justification for disregarding the court order, expressing skepticism over their claim of unawareness regarding the interim order.
The Supreme Court was dissatisfied on Wednesday with the clarification provided by two National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) members regarding their disregard of an interim order from the apex court instructing them not to enforce any coercive measures against a real estate company [Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd vs Sanjay Gopinath].
The two members of the NCDRC were previously instructed to clarify why they had issued non-bailable warrants against the directors of the company, despite a temporary order from the apex court directing against any coercive measures towards the company.
On April 24, a Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah found the explanation given by the NCDRC members regarding their lack of awareness of the Supreme Court’s temporary order unconvincing.
The Bench noted that the NCDRC’s order on March 8, which included the issuance of warrants, acknowledged the Supreme Court’s temporary order issued on March 1.
“We have expressed our reservations on the explanation sought to be offered inasmuch as, the said explanation runs contrary to the order passed by the NCDRC … even after recording that the order passed by this Court has been brought to its notice, the NCDRC proceeded to direct the appellant herein to file an affidavit of compliance with regard to the execution of decree. In our view, this direction itself is unacceptable and flies in the face of the order passed by this Court on 01st March, 2024,” the Supreme Court said in its April 24 order.
The case before the Court stemmed from consumer complaints lodged by homebuyers dissatisfied with delays in the delivery of flats in Gurugram’s ‘The Corridor’ housing project.
Following compensation orders obtained from the NCDRC by the homebuyers, several execution proceedings were initiated against the project developer, Ireo Grace, in the national consumer forum.
Ireo Grace challenged the compensation awards by filing civil appeals with the Supreme Court. On March 1, the Supreme Court granted interim protection to Ireo Grace, issuing notice on the civil appeals and restraining the NCDRC from taking coercive action against the company.
Despite this, in one of the execution proceedings initiated by homebuyers, a two-member Bench of the NCDRC issued non-bailable warrants against Ireo Grace’s directors on April 2, 2024, due to the company’s failure to submit certain compliance affidavits.
Upon learning of this, the Supreme Court requested an explanation from the NCDRC members responsible for the order, namely, Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and Dr. Sadhna Shanker.
Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, representing the NCDRC members, informed the Supreme Court that the oversight was unintentional, and an apology was submitted via affidavit, stating that the consumer forum members were unaware of the Supreme Court’s interim order issued on March 1.
However, Ireo Grace contested this, arguing that the NCDRC members could not claim ignorance of the Supreme Court’s interim order.
The Court found merit in Ireo Grace’s argument.
The Court decided to postpone the hearing until May 3.
“Upon the request of the learned Attorney General, the matter is scheduled for May 3, 2024, and will be given priority,” stated the Court.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, along with advocates Abhimanyu Bhandari, Rooh-e-hina Dua, Dhanakshi Gandhi, and Ruchi, represented Ireo Grace.
Advocates Deepak Kumar Khushlani, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Chritarth Palli, Abhay Kumar, and Shagun Ruhil represented the legal heirs of a deceased homebuyer.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
