In Brief
A housing society sought enforcement of an order requiring a builder to execute a deed of conveyance. The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contained a drafting anomaly: after its 2002 amendment, Section 25(1) limited enforcement to 'interim orders' only, creating an absurd gap when the Act's purpose was to enforce all orders. Using purposive interpretation, the Court read 'any order' instead of 'interim order' and made Code of Civil Procedure provisions applicable. The Court clarified that appeals against District Forum execution orders lie to the State Commission with no further remedy, and directed the NCDRC to expeditiously dispose of thousands of pending execution petitions dating back to 1992.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.