Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Background
Several real-estate builders (including Manohar Infrastructure and TDI Infrastructure, in tagged appeals) had lost money-decree orders before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in favour of home buyers. While their appeals were pending before the National Commission, the builders sought a stay of the State Commission's orders; the National Commission granted a stay only on condition that the builders deposit the entire decretal amount. The builders appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing these stay/deposit orders were passed mechanically without reasons.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the National Commission's orders directing deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition for stay had indeed been passed mechanically, without assigning reasons or passing a speaking order. It allowed the appeals in part, setting aside those stay orders and remanding the applications back to the National Commission to be decided afresh with reasoned orders, while clarifying that a home buyer could still argue for deposit of the full or more than 50% of the amount given the money-decree nature of the claim, and builders could equally argue for an unconditional stay, leaving the final call to the National Commission's reasoned discretion within eight weeks.
Lesson Learnt
Consumer forums and appellate bodies cannot impose conditions like "deposit the entire amount" to grant a stay purely mechanically: they must give reasons, and a party aggrieved by an unreasoned interim stay order has the right to have it reconsidered on a proper, reasoned basis.