Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9052 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No.21668 of 2012)

M/s Shreenath Corp. & Ors.        … APPELLANT

VERSUS

Consumer Education & Research  Society & ORS.       … RESPONDENTS

WITH  Civil Appeal No. 9053 /2013 (@ SLP(C) NO.22442 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9054/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 22452 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9055/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 22511 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9056/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 23047 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9057/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 25741 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9058/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 26119 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9059/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 26683 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9060/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 26687 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9061/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 26699 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9062/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 27433 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9064/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 27434 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9065/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 27435 of 2012) Civil Appeal No. 9066/2013 (@ SLP(C) NO. 27436 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T  

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave was already granted.

2. These appeals are directed against common interim order  

dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as  

the, ‘National Commission’) in interlocutory applications for  

stay in First Appeals preferred by the appellants.

Page 2

2

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-

A  number  of  complaints  u/s  17(1)  of  the  Consumer  

Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act’)  

were filed by different persons before the Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  the,  ‘State  Commission’)  against  the  

appellants - opposite parties.   

4. The State Commission by order dated 30th January, 2012  

allowed the applications in part and directed the appellants-

opposite  parties  to  pay  certain  amount  with  interest  in  

favour of the complainants.  

5. Against the aforesaid orders, the appellants preferred  

separate  appeals  u/s  19  of  the  Act  before  the  National  

Commission being First Appeal Nos.91-104 of 2012.  In all  

these  appeals  separate interlocutory  applications  for stay  

were  filed  by  the  appellants.  The  National  Commission  by  

impugned common order dated 15th May, 2012 passed conditional  

interim order which reads as under:

“Heard. Issue notice on main appeal as well as on  

stay applications to the respondents, returnable  on 22.11.2012.

In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned  order shall remain stayed, till next date, subject  to appellants depositing 50% of the awarded amount  (principal  amount),  within  three  months  from  today, with the State Commission.

On deposit of the amount, State Commission  shall  put  the  same  in  fixed  deposit  in  a  Nationalized Bank, initially for one year.

Dasti.”

Page 3

3

6. Learned  counsel  for the  appellant  contended  that  the  

impugned  interim  order  dated  15th May, 2012 passed  by  the  

National Commission is contrary to the provisions of Section  

19 of  the  Act.  It  was  further  contended  that  deposit  of  

specific amount has been prescribed under the second proviso  

to  Section  19  of  the  Act,  and,  therefore,  the  National  

Commission cannot pass an order asking the appellant before  

it to deposit an amount more than 50% of the amount awarded  

by the State Commission or Rs.35,000/- whichever is less. In  

support of such contention learned counsel for the appellant  

relied upon  judgment of  Delhi High  Court  in  Dr.(Mrs.) K.  

Kathuria  v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, AIR  

2007 Delhi 135.   

7. On  the  other  hand,  according  to  counsel  for  the  

respondents, the impugned order is a conditional order of  

stay and is not passed under second proviso to Section 19 of  

the Act.  

8. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and  

circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned  

counsel  for  the  parties,  we  find  ourselves  entirely  in  

agreement  with  the  submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  

respondents.  

9. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals  

with appeals against the order made by the State Commission  

in  exercise  of  its  power  conferred  by  sub-clause  (i)  of

Page 4

4

clause  (a)  of  Section  17 and  the  said  section  reads  as  

follows:-

“19.Appeals.-Any  person  aggrieved  by  an  order  made  by  the  State  Commission  in  exercise  of  its  powers  conferred  by  sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17 may  prefer an appeal against such order to the  National Commission within a period of thirty  days from the date of the order in such form  and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the National Commission may  entertain an appeal after the expiry of the  said period of thirty days if it is satisfied  that  there  was  sufficient  cause  for  not  filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by  

a person, who is required to pay any amount  in terms of an order of the State Commission,  shall  be  entertained  by  the  National  Commission unless the appellant has deposited  in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of  the  amount  or  rupees  thirty-five  thousand,  whichever is less.”

On plain reading of aforesaid Section 19, we find that  

the second proviso to Section 19 of the Act relates to “pre-  

deposit”  required  for an  appeal  to be  entertained  by the  

National Commission.

10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and  

others, (2000) 7 SCC 348, while dealing with case of waiver  

of “pre-deposit” in an appeal under first proviso to Section  

39(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act held:

“7…………….There  cannot  be  any  dispute  that  right  of  appeal  is  the  creature  of  the  statute and has to be exercised within the  limits  and  according  to  the  procedure  provided by law. It is filed for invoking the  powers  of  a  superior  court  to redress  the

Page 5

5

error of the court below, if any. No right of  appeal  can  be  conferred  except  by  express  words.  An  appeal,  for  its  maintainability,  must  have  a  clear  authority  of  law.  Sub- section (5) of Section 39 of the Act vests a  discretion  in  the  appellate  authority  to  entertain the appeal if it is filed within  sixty  days and  the  amount  of  tax assessed  along  with  penalty  and  interest,  if  any,  recoverable from the persons has been paid.  The aforesaid restriction is subject to the  proviso  conferring  discretion  upon  the  appellate  authority  to  dispense  with  the  deposit of the amount only on proof of the  fact that the appellant was unable to pay the  amount.  Before  deciding  the  appeal,  the  appellate authority affords an opportunity to  the party concerned to either pay the amount  or make out a case for the stay in terms of  proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 39 of  the Act. Once the conditions specified under  sub-section (5) of Section 39 are complied  with, the appeal is born for being disposed  of on merits after hearing both the sides.”

11. The second proviso to Section 19 of the Act mandates  

pre-deposit  for  consideration  of  an  appeal  before  the  

National Commission. It requires 50% of the amount in terms  

of an order of the State Commission or 35,000/- whichever is  

less  for  entertainment  of  an  appeal  by  the  National  

Commission.  Unless  the  appellant  has  deposited  the  pre-

deposit  amount,  the  appeal  cannot  be  entertained  by  the  

National Commission.  A pre-deposit condition to deposit 50%  

of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission  

or  Rs.35,000/-  being  condition  precedent  for  entertaining  

appeal, it has no nexus with the order of stay, as such an  

order may or may not be passed by the National Commission.  

Condition of pre-deposit is there to avoid frivolous appeals.

Page 6

6

12. It is not the case of any of the appellants that the  

Consumer Forum including State and National Commissions has  

no  power  to  pass  interim  order  of  stay. If  the  National  

Commission after hearing the appeal of the parties in its  

discretion wants to stay the amount awarded, it is open to  

the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order  

including conditional order of stay.  Entertainment of an  

appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant to order impugned in  

the appeal stands at different footings,  at  two  different  

stages.  One  (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the  

appeal and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie  

case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss of party  

seeking such stay.

13. In view of the finding recorded above, the interference  

with the impugned order dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the  

National  Commission  is  not  called  for. In  absence  of  any  

merit, the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.  

…………………………………………………………………….J.                  (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………………………………….J.                (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 07, 2014.