- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.7361 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: MR. VIVEK JAIRAJ S/O N.P. JAIRAJ AGED 48 YEARS, EX DIRECTOR OF M/S PEARL COMMUNITY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CURRENTLY RESIDING AT E2 305 SRIRAM WHITEHOUSE APARTMENTS 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN R T NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R SATHISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ANTHONY JOSEPH PRAKASH S/O LATE S.J. LOURDUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.351, SIGAMANI BUILDING, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA BANGALORE – 560 033. 2. SMT. MARIA MELVEENA PRAKASH W/O ANTHONY JOSEPH PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 R/A NO.351, SIGAMANI BUILDING, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA BANGALORE – 560 033. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH EXECUTION CASE IN EA No.46/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND PASS SUCH ORDERS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Article–226 of Constitution of India by JDR No.3, in Case No.EA/46/2023, before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (‘State Commission’ for short), for the following relief: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash execution case in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 EA.No.46/2023 pending before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, vide Annexure-D in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, and pass such orders this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the above petition are as under: The petitioner is the Director of M/s. Pearl Community One Developers Private Limited, a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act. JDR No.2 is the Managing Director of the company. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 entered into an agreement with petitioner and JDR No.2 on 30.04.2015, for sale of residential apartments, which shall be constructed by the petitioner and JDR Nos.1 and 2. The agreement contains certain clauses, especially that the Developer shall get the plan approved by the concerned authority and further the project shall be launched and constructed on or before six - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 months from the date of agreement as per clause-3. Clause-4 of the agreement to sell as extracted in the impugned order by the State Commission starts with a non-obstante clause stating that ‘notwithstanding anything contained herein, if the Developer fails to commence the project within six months from this date the purchaser/s shall be at liberty to assign the agreement in favour of any of their choice or shall be entitled to following amounts viz., refund of the entire amount paid by the purchaser to the Developer and the Purchaser shall be entitled to an interest amount of 24% p.a. for the advance paid.’ Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as an advance, under the agreement to sell. 3. In view of default committed by the petitioner qua JDR Nos.1 and 2, the respondents sought for refund of money as contemplated under clause-4 of the agreement. In furtherance of the same, the petitioner and JDR nos. 1 and 2 had returned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and are in due - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 of Rs.18,00,000/-. As there is a failure to return the balance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- despite several requests, respondent no.1 and 2 approached the State Commission in complaint being No.19/2020, under Section-17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act of 1986 for short), seeking a direction against petitioner and JDR Nos.1 and 2 to refund the balance amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, with 24% interest per annum, from the date of agreement to sell till 30.12.2019 i.e., the date of complaint and also future interest at the rate of 24% per annum, till realization of the entire amount, along with other reliefs for compensation. 4. In response to the notice issued, petitioner and JDR Nos.1 and 2, though served, remained ex-parte. The State Commission proceeded with the complaint and after recording evidence; was pleased to allow the complaint by order dated 27.07.2022 holding that there is a deficiency of service by the petitioner, qua JDR Nos. 1 and 2 and directed them to refund sum of Rs.18,00,000/- along with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from 30.04.2015 i.e., the date of agreement, till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. 5. As there is a failure on the part of the petitioner qua JDR Nos.1 and 2, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 having left with no other alternative, filed an execution application in Execution Application No. 46 of 2003 before the State Commission, to execute the order dated 27.07.2022 for a sum of Rs.54,06,000/- with future interest as on 25.05.2023. 6. As could be seen from the records, JDR Nos.2 & 3 appeared before the State Commission through their counsel on 07.05.2024 and 13.09.2024 respectively and have submitted that they would settle the matter at the earliest. On several occasion the petitioner and JDR Nos.1 and 2 have taken adjournments on the premise that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 they would settle the matter. Taking note of the same, the State Commission has granted time till 20.02.2025. As the assurance made before the State Commission in the execution proceedings was not honored, on 20.02.2025, the State Commission issued arrest warrant against the petitioner qua JDR Nos.1 and 2 through the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, returnable by 01.04.2025. 7. In the interregnum, the petitioner herein submitted his resignation on 20.07.2024 from the post of Director and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India has issued a receipt in that regard. 8. The petitioner is calling in question the execution proceedings before the State Commission in the present petition. 9. Heard Sri.K.R.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the entire petition papers. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 10. Sri. Sathish vehemently contended that he was a Director of JDR No. 1 - company. The agreement was entered into between respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the company through Managing Director and as such, he is not liable to pay the amount ordered by the State Commission. That apart, he has taken a specific contention that on 20.07.2024, the petitioner has resigned from the post of Director, which has been accorded by the Government of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the State Commission in execution proceedings on 18.10.2024, however, the same was not considered. 11. He has further submitted that he was not served with the Notice of complaint and he was not given any opportunity to file his objection in the execution proceedings by the State Commission, the same violates the principles of natural justice. In view of the resignation by the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the amount ordered on the claim made by respondent nos. 1 and 2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 and seeks to allow the petition and quash the execution proceedings in E.A. No.46/2023, against him. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any case even to issue a notice and whether impunged order requires interference?” 13. Our answer to the above question is in ‘negative’ for the following reasons: As could be seen from the record, no appeal is filed calling in question the order passed by State Commission dated 27.07.2022 in Complaint No.19 of 2020, whereby the petitioner qua JDR Nos.1 and 2 were directed to pay the amount stated supra. The order passed by the State Commission has attained finality and is put into execution for recovery of the amount ordered in favour of respondent nos.1 & 2. The petitioner appeared in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 execution proceedings in the year 2024 and till the issuance of arrest warrant, made submission that he would settle the matter. Even the JDR Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed appeal against order on complaint by the State Commission, in the absence of any appeal to the original order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek to stall or quash the execution proceedings. The contentions of the petitioner viz., he is not served with notice, the order passed by the State Commission not in accordance with law and that the interest amount awarded is exorbitant cannot be considered in the execution proceedings before the State Commission. Without calling in question the original order passed by the State Commission dated 27.07.2022, in Complaint No.19/2020, the petitioner cannot be permitted to stall the execution proceedings initiated in terms of the order passed by the State Commission. 14. A perusal of entire order-sheet in the execution petition clearly shows that the petitioner as well as JDR - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 Nos. 1 and 2 on the premise of settlement, protracted the proceedings nearly for a period more than a year and petitioner now on untenable grounds calling in question the execution proceedings in the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner that he has resigned on 20.07.2024 requires to be rejected, as the same is subsequent to the execution of agreement to sell, filing of complaint, passing of the order by the State Commission and filing of the execution proceedings to execute the order. 15. A party – litigant cannot be permitted to protract the proceedings initiated in accordance with law, as the same amounts to abuse of process of law. The conduct of the petitioner debars him from any relief even if any in the petition, in the absence of any challenge to the order which is put into execution. 16. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the petition filed is yet another device to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25006-DB WP No. 7361 of 2025 protract the proceedings and a delay tactics, which cannot permitted to be entertained under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition sans merit and requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15