Read Time: 06 minutes

"Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and only in a case where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance before the National Commission deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through their authorized representative or through their counsel", said the Supreme Court on Thursday.

With this, a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna went on to quash the warrant issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director, L& T Finance Ltd.

In the instant case, a consumer complaint was filed by Pramod Kumar Rana before the NCDRC. When the complaint came up for hearing M/s. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (opposite party no. 1) made a submission that the matter had been settled between the parties.

An adjournment was sought by Rana's counsel to seek instructions in this respect. The complaint was taken up for further hearing on August 26, 2021, when Rana, made a grievance that he had been pressurised/forced by the representatives of the two opposite parties to sign on blank papers and visits threatening him were made to his residence by the representatives to force him into a “settlement” which according to him was neither amicable nor voluntary and nor equitable. 

This prompted NCDRC to direct Mukesh Aggarwal, Director of M/s. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (opposite party no.1) and Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi, Director of L& T Finance (opposite party No.2) to appear in person, either in physical hearing or through video conferencing on the next date of hearing to explain the situation and clarify their position.

On September 3, 2021, Mukesh Aggarwal, appeared through video conferencing but the authorised representatives and the counsel  for DM Dubhashi appeared before the National Commission.

Furthermore, on subsequent hearings too Dubhashi did not remain present before the Commission personally, after which bailable warrants were issued against him by further directing that he may be produced before the National Commission on 18.10.2021.

The Supreme Court noted that all throughout the representatives of L&T Finance and their counsel remained present before the National Commission. 

While the allegations were serious and can be said to be interfering in the administration of justice, the bench was of the view that they were yet to be considered in detail by the National Commission after giving an opportunity to the opposite parties.

It was further noted that although the allegations were that the representatives of the opposite companies gave threats and forced Rana to enter into settlement and there were no specific allegations against Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi.

Thus, the bench went on to quash and set aside the orders directing Shri Dinanath Mohandas Dubhashi to personally remain present through physical mode or through video conferencing and the subsequent order issuing bailable warrants against him.

Cause title: L & T Finance Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Rana & Anr.