LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

VINOD VERMA (C E O)     02 November 2012

Ncdrc judgement

We won a case at SCDRC at Chandigarh p[artially. The award was challenged by us firstly for letter rate of interest and travellimh expenses. Simultaneoous the Builder /OP filed and ap[p[eal for rejecto fthe award. Bothg cases were (FA's) were taken up in Dec.2011. The single member Bench allowed depost of the amount with SCDRC first 50% in 4 weeks and the balance 2months thereafter..

1. The builders did deposit the amount 50% with SCDRC. the 2nd installment was not deposited in time, and we did make repeated requests befor eth President SCDRC that due default, the stay stands vacated and we be allowed the 3ecovery of full amount as per award

in end May the builders m,oved application IA after 5 1/2 Months for seeking extension in time to deposit the 2nd installment. The IA was filed on 29th May and decided even on the 31st pay, without the complainaant/CH holder being called for. the NCDRC allowed them time of further 7 days from 31st May seven days to pay 2nd installment with 15% interest. 

In our ma. we had sought the release of the amount lkying in SCDRC as per orders of NCDRC that it shall be intially for 1 yrs fioxed deposit. To our utter shock, we have been asked to furnish continous Bank Gurantee for the same amount to get out amount released. Will there be any advantage the we file SLP in Supreme Court. The order of 31st May has been passed silently and we get to have the same in end Oct., 2012. Please advise us remedial measures

9815850278....Vinod Verna 



Learning

 1 Replies

Sumanth Nookala (Lawyer)     17 November 2012

Usually Supreme COurt does not interfere against interim orders. In your case, there seems to be a error apparent. But its worth a try...


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register