Text

M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present matter arises from a civil appeal filed by the appellant-Company, wherein the
Supreme Court, by an order dated 01st March, 2024, had issued notice and specifically
directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Directors of the appellant-Company in
relation to Execution Application No. 576/2022 pending before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Despite being made aware of this restraining
order during proceedings on 08th March, 2024, the NCDRC, on 02nd April, 2024, proceeded
to issue non-bailable warrants against the Directors of the appellant-Company.This
development led to serious objections before the Supreme Court, especially in light of the
fact that the NCDRC had previously recorded, on 08th March, 2024, that it was in possession
of the Supreme Court’s order dated 01st March, 2024. Subsequently, a joint affidavit dated
20th April, 2024, was submitted by the Presiding Member and Member of the NCDRC,
claiming that the Supreme Court's order was not brought to their notice by the proxy
advocates and that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was an inadvertent and unintended
error. The Court, however, noted inconsistencies in the explanation provided, particularly
since the NCDRC's own order of 08th March, 2024, confirmed that it had received and
acknowledged the Supreme Court’s restraint order. The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Ranjit
Kumar, also submitted an affidavit dated 01st April, 2024, filed before the NCDRC and
enclosing the Supreme Court’s order, further contesting any claim of ignorance. The Supreme
Court has granted time for the appellant to file a reply to the affidavit submitted by the
NCDRC members and scheduled the matter for further hearing on 03rd May, 2024.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
 Violation of Supreme Court's Restraining Order by NCDRC Whether the NCDRC
acted in contravention of the Supreme Court’s order dated 01st March, 2024, which
restrained any coercive steps against the Directors of the appellant-Company, by
issuing non-bailable warrants on 02nd April, 2024?
 Credibility of NCDRC’s Explanation and Affidavit
Whether the explanation offered by the Presiding Member and Member of the
NCDRC—that the Supreme Court’s order was not brought to their notice on 02nd
April, 2024—is tenable, considering the recorded acknowledgment of the order on
08th March, 2024?
 Compliance with Supreme Court OrdersWhether directing the appellant (Judgment
Debtor) to file an affidavit of compliance with the execution decree on 08th March,
2024, was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directive against coercive steps?
 Responsibility for Communication LapseWhether the advocates (proxy or otherwise)
appearing on 02nd April, 2024, failed in their duty to bring the Supreme Court’s order
to the NCDRC’s notice, and whether such lapse, if any, is sufficient to exonerate the
Members of the NCDRC?
 Affidavit Dated 01st April, 2024 and Alleged SuppressionWhether the affidavit filed
by the appellant on 01st April, 2024, enclosing a copy of the Supreme Court’s order,
was intentionally or negligently omitted from the case file by the Registry of
NCDRC?
 Verification of Procedural Integrity by NCDRC RegistryWhether the Registrar of
NCDRC is able to verify and account for the missing affidavit, and what implications
this has on the credibility and procedural integrity of the NCDRC’s handling of the
matter?
 Opportunity to RespondWhether the appellant-Company should be granted leave to
file a reply to the affidavit of compliance submitted by the Members of the NCDRC,
and whether such reply would assist in determining the factual matrix of the
procedural lapse?

ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE:
The contentions of the both the side of this case has been explained below:

Petitioner’s contention
The petitioner, representing the appellant-Company, submits that the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) violated the Supreme Court’s interim order dated
1 March 2024, which explicitly directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Directors
of the appellant-Company. This order was acknowledged by the NCDRC in its proceedings
on 8 March 2024, where the counsel for the appellant had handed over a copy of the Supreme
Court’s order. Despite this, the NCDRC went on to issue non-bailable warrants against the
Directors on 2 April 2024. The petitioner contends that the explanation later offered by the
NCDRC Members—that they were unaware of the Supreme Court's order—is unconvincing
and directly contradicted by their own recorded order from 8 March. It is argued that the
NCDRC's actions demonstrate a clear disregard for the Supreme Court's binding directions
and amount to judicial indiscipline.

Respondent’s contention
The respondents, namely the Presiding Member and Member of the NCDRC, have submitted
that the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the Directors of the appellant-Company
was an inadvertent and unintended error. They contend that the order dated 01 March 2024,
passed by the Supreme Court restraining coercive steps, was not brought to their notice at the
time of passing the impugned order on 02 April 2024. They attribute this lapse to the failure
of the proxy advocates representing both the decree holder and judgment debtors to inform
them of the Supreme Court’s order. Their affidavit offers an apology and emphasizes that the
oversight was unintentional.

JUDGEMENTS OF THE CASE:
The matter before the Court pertains to the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the Directors of the appellant-
Company, despite a prior order of this Court dated 01st March, 2024, which expressly
directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against them.On the last date of hearing, Senior
Counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the appellant-Company, brought to the Court’s
attention the subsequent order dated 02nd April, 2024, issued by the NCDRC. In that order,
the NCDRC, notwithstanding this Court's stay on coercive action, directed the issuance of
non-bailable warrants against the Directors of the Company. It was pointed out that this

Court's order had been brought to the attention of the NCDRC on 08th March, 2024.In
response, a joint affidavit dated 20th April, 2024, was submitted by the Presiding Member
and Member of the NCDRC. They contended that the order of this Court dated 01st March,
2024, was not brought to their notice at the time of passing the warrant order and that the
omission was inadvertent and unintentional. They offered an apology to the Court and
claimed that proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtor had failed to inform
them of the said order. However, the Court took note of the contradiction in the explanation
offered. It was highlighted that the NCDRC, in its order dated 08th March, 2024, had clearly
recorded that a copy of the Supreme Court's order dated 01st March, 2024, had been handed
over by the counsel for the judgment debtor. The NCDRC nonetheless directed the filing of
an affidavit of compliance, which the Court viewed as a direct contradiction and disregard of
its stay order.

Detail Information

Title

M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath

Court

: supreme court., 2022

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2764-2771/2022

Matter(s)

-

Councels

MR. RANJIT KUMAR, SR. ADV., MR. ABHIMANYU BHANDARI, ADV., MS. ROOH-E-HINA DUA, AOR, MS. DHANAKSHI GANDHI, ADV, MS. RUCHI, ADV, MR. SAMEER CHAUDHARY, ADV, MS. SHAKSHI KAUSHIK, ADV, MR. AAMIR HUSAIN, ADV, MR. MAHESH AGARWAL, ADV, MR. ANSHUMAN SRIVASTAVA, ADV, MS. BISWABARA DASH, ADV, MR. E. C. AGRAWALA AOR, MR. R. VENKATARAMANI, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA, MR. CHITVAN SINGHAL, ADV, MR. SRIHARSH NAHUSH BUNDELA, AOR,

Statement of Responsibility

Sweety Kumari Shaw/Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata

See Also

File Attachment

Comments