ALSO READ'Udta Punjab' row an attempt to malign Punjab's image: Badal Removing 'Punjab' from 'Udta Punjab' is taking soul out of No objection to 'Udta Punjab' release: Punjab govt Security beefed up in Punjab cinemas as 'Udta Punjab' released, 30 Shiv Sainiks taken into custody Punjab based NGO moves SC for stay on release of 'Udta Punjab'
Two officials of a real estate firm face arrest for failing to hand over possession of an apartment to a buyer on time, with the apex consumer commission upholding a state commission order to arrest them for non-compliance of its directives.
The Punjab state consumer commission had ordered the arrest of the Director and General Manager of Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd after they had failed to comply with its order to refund money to the buyer who was not handed over the possession of a flat on time.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the firm's appeal against the Punjab state commission's order.
The NCDRC observed that the counsel appearing for the firm had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation before it about the non-appearance of these two officials before the state commission.
"It was the duty of the judgment debtor, therefore, to put in appearance before the State Commission and state their view point before them," the apex consumer commission, presided over by B C Gupta, said.
Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd had approached NCDRC against the state commission's April last year order.
While dismissing the plea, the NCDRC noted that the firm could not come up with any satisfactory explanation on why its officials did not show up before the state commission.
"There is no merit in the present appeal therefore, and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine (at the outset). The order passed by state commission is upheld," it said.
The commission also said it was clear from the facts of the case that "if the appellants (firm and its officials) wanted to make an alternative offer they could have challenged the April 23, 2015, order passed by the state commission".
"But they chose not to do so. Since the order dated April 23, 2015, has already become final, as admitted by the counsel at the time of hearing the present execution appeal, the miscellaneous application could not have been allowed," it said.