C.W.P. No.16825 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16825 of 2011 Date of Decision.23.11.2011 Kanwar Sat Pal Singh son of Sh. Raghbir Singh, aged 83 years, resident of Kothi No.2322, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh .....Petitioner Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) C.M. No.15791 of 2011 Application is allowed. The case is taken up for hearing today itself. C.W.P. No.16825 of 2011 1. The petition challenges the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission in the execution proceedings directing the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner had been admittedly a Director of company, which had committed default in return of the deposits received from public. On a complaint made before the Consumer Forum by the person, who had lost his deposit, an award was passed against the company as well as its directors. The amount realizable was sought to be realized in execution proceedings against the Directors. The petitioner contended that C.W.P. No.16825 of 2011 -2- although he was a Director of the company at the time when the deposit was made, he had ceased to be a Director subsequently and he was not in any way personally connected with the affairs of the company. The further contention is that person, who was the Managing Director of the company is alone responsible and therefore, the recoveries could not have been made against him. It is a case where there had been a deception made to the public by accepting deposits by a company, which failed to return the amounts. 2. I have put to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in expression of his bona fides, he should offer to deposit a portion of money at least. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner defies the Court to pass an order contending that he is not in any way concerned with the affairs of the company. A party to the award of the District Forum and who has suffered an award, can not deny liability at the stage of execution. If he was aggrieved against the award he ought to have preferred an appeal against the District Forum. The present objections are at the stage of execution proceedings. Originally, he was saying that he would be liable only for 1/5th of the award in execution proceedings but now he is untenably denying the entire liability. The order passed directing the arrest of the petitioner was, under the circumstances, justified and I will find no reason for interfering with the order passed by the Court passed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 23, 2011 Pankaj*