Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.

com)

$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th November, 2019
+ CM(M) 1701/2019 and CM APPL. 51535/2019, 51536/2019
M/S D S S BUILDTECH PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwarya Sinha and Mr. Alok K.
Singh, Advocates (M: 9999349092).
versus
MANOJ KAYAL ....Respondent
Through: Shrey Sinha, Advocate
(M:8447355352)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J(oral)

CM APPL 51536/2019 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1701/2019 & CM APPL. 51535/2019
2. The present petition under Article 227 has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 30th October, 2019 passed by the NCDRC. The said
order reads as under :-
“We have partly heard the learned counsel for the
appellants on admission, and perused the entire material
on record including inter alia specifically the impugned
Order dated 09.01.2019 of the State Commission.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated

09.01.2019 had allowed the complaint.
We note in particular paras 13 and 14 of the said
Order dated 09.01.2019 of the State Commission.
in the facts and unsavoury specificities of the case, we
deem it appropriate that; [a] the entire decretal
amount (with clear and cogent calculation sheet) shall
be deposited by the appellants builder co. before the
State Commission at the earliest and [b] the chief
executive of the appellants builder co. shall file a

CM(M) 1701/2019 Page 1 of 6

.
 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

report, supported with affidavit, on the whole matter,

on the basis of its record, through counsel.
The said report shall inter alia be perused while
concluding arguments on admission.
On a question from the bench, learned counsel for the
appellants builder co. submits that it would require
four weeks to file the requisite report supported with
affidavit from the chief executive of the appellants
builder co.
The learned counsel for the appellants builder co. is
requested to bring this instant Order to the notice of
the chief executive of the appellants builder co. at the
earliest.
And, the chief executive of the appellants builder co.
shall file a report on the whole matter, supported with
affidavit, on the basis of its record, within four weeks
from today, without fail, through counsel.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to
the chief executive of the appellants builder co. (D.S.S.
Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) within seven days.
Contingent to (and subsequent to) the entire decretal
amount (with clear and cogent calculation sheet) being
deposited by the appellants builder co. with the State
Commission, the operation of the impugned Order of
the State Commission shall be stayed. The amount
deposited shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially
for a period of one year to be renewed regularly.
It is made explicit that we have as yet not issued notice
to the respondent in this case.
List on 20.12.2019 for concluding arguments on
admission.”
3. The grievance of ld. counsel for the Petitioner is that the State
Commission’s order dated 9th January, 2019 which was challenged in the
appeal filed by the Petitioner before the NCDRC has been directed to be

CM(M) 1701/2019 Page 2 of 6

.
 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

complied with in full, and further directions have been issued, asking for the
report of the Chief Executive, even without notice being issued in the appeal
or the appeal being admitted. It is submitted that a perusal of the order
makes it clear that the ld. Bench of NCDRC categorically states that no
notice has been issued in the matter but the entire decretal amount has been
directed to be deposited as a condition for grant of stay. He further submits
that the ld. Bench of NCDRC, which passed the instant order, does not have
a judicial member as per Regulation 12 of the Consumer Protection
Regulations, 2005. He further points out to this Court that on the same very
day, another order has been passed in FA 1032/2019 between completely
different parties wherein the order passed by the NCDRC is identical except
for factual corrections as to dates.
4. The Court has perused the impugned order of the NCDRC dated 30th
October, 2019. As per the said order, the appeal of the Petitioner has not yet
been admitted, as is clear from the sentence reading “the said report shall
inter alia be perused while concluding arguments on admission.” Thus, the
admission of the appeal is yet to happen. The last but one paragraph of the
order also makes it clear that no notice has been issued to the Respondent.
However, the entire decretal amount has been directed to be deposited as a
condition for stay, which ld. counsel submits is premature, inasmuch as
unless and until the NCDRC takes a decision for admission of the appeal or
issuance of notice, the condition for deposit cannot be made and, in fact,
even stay cannot be granted.
5. The identity of two orders in two completely different matters is
absolutely startling. A perusal of the order of the same very date passed in
FA No. 1032/2019 titled M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure v Varun

CM(M) 1701/2019 Page 3 of 6

.
 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)
Gupta shows that the same is verbatim to the impugned order except as to
some dates. The comparative table of the two orders is set out below:-
F.A. No. 1115/2019
“The State Commission vide its
impugned Order dated 09.01.2019
had allowed the complaint.
We note in particular paras 13 and
14 of the said Order dated
09.01.2019 of the State Commission.
In the facts and unsavoury
specificities of the case, we deem it
appropriate that; [a] the entire
decretal amount (with clear and
cogent calculation sheet) shall be
deposited by the appellants builder
co. before the State Commission at
the earliest and [b] the chief
executive of the appellants builder
co. shall file a report, supported
with affidavit, on the whole matter,
on the basis of its record, through
counsel.
The said report shall inter alia be
perused while concluding arguments
on admission.
On a question from the bench,
learned counsel for the appellants
builder co. submits that it would
require four weeks to file the
requisite report supported with
affidavit from the chief executive of
the appellants builder co.
The learned counsel for the
appellants builder co. is requested to
CM(M) 1701/2019
.
F.A. No. 1032/2019
“The State Commission vide its
impugned Order dated 20.02.2019
had allowed the complaint.
We note in particular paras 12 and
13 of the said Order dated
20.02.2019 of the State Commission.
In the facts and unsavoury
specificities of the case, we deem it
appropriate that; [a] the entire
decretal amount (with clear and
cogent calculation sheet) shall be
deposited by the appellant builder
co. before the State Commission at
the earliest and [b] the chief
executive of the appellant builder
co. shall file a report, supported
with affidavit, on the whole matter,
on the basis of its record, through
counsel.
The said report shall inter alia he
perused while concluding arguments
on admission.
On a question from the bench,
learned counsel for the appellant
builder co. submits that it would
require four weeks to file the
requisite report supported with
affidavit from the chief executive of
the appellant builder co.
The learned counsel for the
appellant builder co. is requested to
Page 4 of 6
 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

bring this instant Order to the notice bring this instant Order to the notice
of the chief executive of the of the chief executive, of the
appellants builder co. at the earliest. appellant builder co. at the earliest.

And, the chief executive of the
appellants builder co. shall file a
report on the whole matter,
supported with affidavit, on the basis
of its record, within four weeks from
today, without fail, through counsel.
The Registry is directed to send a
copy of this Order to the chief
executive of the appellants builder
co. (D.S.S. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.)
within seven days.
Contingent to (and subsequent to)
the entire decretal amount (with
clear and cogent calculation sheet)
being deposited by the appellants
builder co. with the State
Commission, the operation of the
impugned Order of the State
Commission shall be stayed. The
amount deposited shall be kept in
the shape of an FDR initially for a
period of one year to be renewed
regularly.
And, the chief executive of the
appellant builder co. shall file a
report on the whole matter,
supported with affidavit, on the
basis of its record, within four weeks
from today, without fail, through
counsel.
The Registry is directed to send a
copy of this Order to the chief
executive of the appellant builder
CO. (M/s Taneja Developers and
Infrastructure) within seven days.
Contingent to (and subsequent to)
the entire decretal amount (with
clear and cogent calculation sheet)
being deposited by the appellant
builder co. with the State
Commission, the operation of the
impugned Order of the State
Commission shall be stayed. The
amount deposited shall be kept in
the shape of an FDR initially for a
period of one year to be renewed
regularly.

It is made explicit that we have as It is made explicit that we have as

yet not issued notice to the yet not issued notice to the
respondent in this case. respondent in this case.
List on 20.12.2019 for concluding List on 18.12.2019 for concluding
arguments on admission.” arguments on admission.”

6. A perusal of the impugned order and the order extracted above shows

CM(M) 1701/2019 Page 5 of 6

.
 Ba:r & Bench (www.barandb,ench.com)

that the NCDRC appears to be passing identical templated orders in such

matters and the same is inexplicable. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner, after
enquiring from the counsel in the Taneja case, submits that the factual
context of these two cases, are completely different.
7. The passing of such identical templated orders by the NCDRC is a
matter of grave concern as it may reflect non-application of mind.
Considering that the factual scenarios are different in the two matters, such
orders by any forum would be wholly unacceptable.
8. Considering the above background, it is directed that the records of
these two appeals being FA No. 1115/2019 titled M/s D.S.S Buildtech Pvt.
Ltd and Others v. Manoj Kayal and FA No. 1032/2019 titled M/S. Taneja
Developers & Infrastructure v Varun Gupta be called for on the next date.
The present order shall be communicated to the Registrar General of the
NCDRC, in order to produce records of these two cases on the next date of
hearing. The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the
next date.
9. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent has entered
appearance. Let a copy of the paper book be supplied to him. Before the
next date, ld. counsel for the Petitioner to also seek instructions as to the
status of the construction of the project of the Petitioner in order for this
Court to balance equities between the parties. The State Commission shall
adjourn the matter in the meantime.
10. List on 19th December, 2019.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2019
MR

CM(M) 1701/2019 Page 6 of 6