Nagpur: Come to save the developer, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has condemned the country’s consumer disputes to keep him in prison for almost a year without finishing the trial.
Applicant Suhas Morey, Director of Revati Associates and the infrastructure was placed behind the bar on January 6, 2021, when he appeared in front of the commission in a case submitted by Respondents Dhanraj Khaparde, a senior citizen from Katol.
The latter has bought three plots of Mechhery for RS65 Lakh and pays RS55 Lakh Advance.
After failing to get property, he submitted a case with a commission for a refund.
The commission ordered more to restore RS55 Lakh to Khaparde along with interest on October 21, 2016.
When he failed to obey the ruling decision, it was not burdened with him, but he was released with a guarantee later.
On January 6 last year, he appeared before the commission and begged innocent.
However, the judges canceled his warranty because he did not obey their orders for more than five years and release it to the master custody by canceling his guarantee.
Since then, he has been behind the bar until last week in December, and four bail requests were rejected.
“The Commission’s process revealed that until now there was no progress, but the date was given.
Even though the applicant was in a master’s prisoner, there was still no fairly amazing progress.
Part 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2016, gave a maximum sentence that could be extended to three Year.
Without a court, the applicant is kept behind the bar for almost a year.
This is a fit case to exercise Writ Jurisdiction because there is a violation of personal freedom, “said Justice Vinay Joshi.
According to him, the Commission has assessed pre-and before concluding the trial, imprisoning the applicant.
“Of course, he can be stored behind bars, if he violates the condition of the guarantee.
However, ordered January 6, 2021, it himself spoke that he himself appeared and placed in prison.
This approach keeps him behind bars and delaying this problem is quite disturbing .
“While countermand Commission rejected the bail Morey, HC directs to give him bail.
“One can understand taking petitions in detention if he jumps guarantees or has been brought based on the implementation of a warrant.
In general, in this possibility, defaulter was detained to secure his presence to be tried.
However, January 6 ordered, there was no spell that there was a possibility of escaping from Applicant.
Just consider the antecedents of his past and in particular, orders’ non-compliance, guarantees are canceled.
“Joshi’s justice shows that the trial has not been done where, whether it is intentional default or although quite significant, the Applicant avoids paying, must be decided.
“The situation is such that if he asks guilty then he will be punished.
Or, when he denied, he was detained without a process.
Before he discovered that he deliberately avoided paying or intentionally at default, he was imprisoned and in prison for a year.
The Commission’s approach is entirely on the principles of natural justice.
“What HC said * The commission process revealed that there was no progress in the trial, but the date given * Consumer Law gave a maximum sentence of up to 3 years * without holding a trial, the applicant behind bars about one year * Pre-Haki commission & before concluding, the applicant was imprisoned * the approach to keep him in prison and material that sold was quite disturbing