In Brief
This case concerns the maintainability of Supreme Court appeals against an execution order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC's original order (2014) directed apartment developers to pay 70% of maintenance charges from November 2002. In a subsequent execution proceeding (2015), the NCDRC clarified that 66 persons were liable for the total maintenance charges. The developers challenged this, arguing it contradicted the original complaint about lift deficiency. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, holding that Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act permits appeals only against original proceedings, not execution proceedings.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.