Economic Transport Organisation vs M/S New India Assurance Co Ltd & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 01.10.2026
Date of Decision: 30.10.2026
Date of Uploading: 30.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010998232025
+ CM(M) 2405/2025, CM APPL. 78295/2025, CM APPL.
3291/2026
ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey,
Advs.
versus
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi and
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
J U D G M E N T
%
1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge
the orders dated 11.05.2018 and 26.09.2025 passed by the learned
1
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Execution
Application No. 3/2014, arising out of OP No. 392/2000. By the order
dated 11.05.2018, the learned National Commission dismissed the
petitioner’s application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
2
Procedure, 1908 , on the ground that the dissolution deed of the
judgment debtor partnership firm had not been furnished. By the order
1
Hereinafter ‘learned National Commission’
2
Hereinafter ‘CPC’
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 1 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
dated 26.09.2025, the learned National Commission dismissed IA No.
11491/2025, whereby the petitioner had sought determination of the
individual liability of the partners/directors and had further sought that
the auction of the attached property situated at Transport Nagar,
Haridwar, not be proceeded with.
2. The dispute emanates from a consignment of medicines
entrusted to the petitioner/JD for transportation from Nasik to
Guwahati in September, 1999. The consignment, comprising 554
cartons and valued at Rs.43,32,078/-, was loaded on 28.09.1999 but
did not reach its destination. A criminal complaint was lodged by the
petitioner on 26.10.1999, following which the respondent no.1/insurer
settled the loss suffered by respondent no.2/consignor for
Rs.43,32,078/-. A subrogation letter was thereafter issued by
respondent no.2 on 02.11.2000 and respondent no.1 instituted OP
No.392/2000 against the petitioner before the learned National
Commission for recovery of Rs.44,00,778/-, along with interest. The
complaint was initially dismissed on 01.04.2002 by the learned
National Commission.
3. The dismissal of the complaint was carried in appeal before the
Supreme Court. In the meantime, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court, on 17.02.2010, decided the question concerning the
maintainability of a complaint by an insurer as a subrogee. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of Oberai Forwarding
on the question of subrogation, pursuant to which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, on 23.03.2010, set aside the earlier order of the
learned National Commission and remanded the matter for
consideration in light of the Constitution Bench judgment.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 2 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
4. Upon remand, the learned National Commission allowed the
complaint vide judgment dated 02.11.2012, as subsequently modified
on 30.11.2012, directing payment of Rs.44,00,778/- with interest at
9% per annum and costs of Rs.50,000/-The appeal preferred against
the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on
15.04.2013.
5. Respondent No. 1/ DH thereafter instituted Execution
Application No. 3/2014 seeking execution of the aforesaid judgment
and recovery of Rs.44,00,778/- together with interest at 9% per annum
from 02.11.2000 and costs of Rs.50,000/- The petitioner filed
objections to the execution on 24.11.2014, contending inter alia, that
the partnership firm against which the decree had been passed had
been dissolved and that the present company could not be made liable
for the decree merely because it carried the same name.
6. On 30.01.2018, the petitioner further filed an application under
Section 47 CPC, specifically raising the objection that the judgment
debtor firm had been dissolved during the pendency of the original
proceedings and that the persons liable to satisfy the decree had
consequently not been brought before the executing forum. The
objection was dismissed by the learned National Commission vide
order dated 11.05.2018.
7. On 30.08.2023, while considering the objections and the
application filed by the petitioner, the learned National Commission
noted the petitioner’s contention that the decree was against the
erstwhile partnership firm, whereas the petitioner was a private limited
company; that the partnership firm had, according to the petitioner,
stood dissolved in 2006, prior to the decree; and that of the 20 partners
of the erstwhile firm, only two had joined the newly constituted
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 3 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
private limited company. The learned National Commission granted
respondent No. 1 four weeks to respond to the petitioner’s objections
concerning its liability and directed the parties to place the relevant
documents, including the orders passed in the proceedings before the
Supreme Court, on record.
8. Upon an application by respondent No. 2 seeking deletion from
the array of parties, the learned National Commission, by order dated
10.01.2024, noted that the judgment was in favour of respondent No.
1 alone and that the direction for payment was against the petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 was accordingly deleted from the execution
proceedings.
9. On 20.03.2024, the learned National Commission directed the
petitioner/JD to file, on affidavit, the date of registration of the
company along with its Registration Certificate and the particulars of
its Directors/CEO, the date of dissolution of the erstwhile partnership
firm, the complete list and contact details of its partners, and the
particulars of the erstwhile partners who were subsequently Directors
of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1/DH was, in turn, directed to state
the manner and mode in which, and against whom, it proposed to
execute the decree in the prevailing circumstances, along with the
requisite details and compilation.
10. On 10.07.2024, the learned National Commission noted that the
petitioner in his affidavit had stated that there were 17 partners at the
time of dissolution, whereas the affidavit filed by it contained
particulars of only 10 partners. The learned National Commission
consequently directed the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit containing
complete particulars of all 17 partners. It further recorded that only
one of those partners, namely Sudarshan Kumar Arya, was stated to be
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 4 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
a director in the present company, and issued a show-cause notice to
him concerning non-compliance with the orders of the Commission,
including satisfaction of the decree. At the same time, the question of
the liability of the present judgment debtor was expressly kept open
for consideration on merits.
11. The petitioner’s application under Section 47 CPC was,
however, dismissed by the learned National Commission on
11.05.2018 on the ground that no dissolution deed had been produced,
the names and addresses of the partners had not been disclosed, and no
affidavit of any partner confirming dissolution had been filed.
Subsequently, by order dated 26.09.2025, the learned National
Commission dismissed IA No. 11491/2025, by which the petitioner
had sought determination of the individual liability of the
partners/directors and a restraint against proceeding with the auction
of the attached property. The learned National Commission held that
there was no earlier direction to apportion the decretal liability
amongst the partners and that the decree against the firm was liable to
be satisfied jointly and severally by its partners, with no requirement
for the executing court to determine individual liability by way of
apportionment.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the principal
issue in the present petition arose from the distinction between the
erstwhile partnership firm against which the decree was passed and
the petitioner company. The partnership firm had, according to the
petitioner, been dissolved in 2006, whereas the petitioner was a
subsequently constituted company. The learned National Commission
had itself taken note of this distinction in its order dated 30.08.2023,
recording the petitioner’s contention that the erstwhile firm had 20
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 5 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
partners, of whom only two had joined the newly constituted
company. Learned counsel submitted that the question, therefore, was
not merely one of execution of the decree, but of identifying the
person or entity against whom the decree could legally be executed.
13. He has further submitted that the learned National Commission
thereafter itself undertook an exercise to ascertain the persons against
whom the decree could be executed. By order dated 20.03.2024, it
directed the petitioner to furnish particulars of the company, the
dissolution of the erstwhile firm, its partners and the partners who had
subsequently become Directors of the petitioner, while directing
respondent No.1 to disclose the manner in which, and against whom,
it proposed to execute the decree. On 10.07.2024, the learned National
Commission noted that there were 17 partners at the time of
dissolution, whereas particulars of only 10 had been furnished, and
directed complete particulars of all 17 partners to be placed on record.
It was further recorded that only one of the erstwhile partners was a
Director of the petitioner. The issue of the petitioner’s liability was
expressly kept open for determination on merits.
14. He has submitted that the above exercise was necessary to
determine whether, and to what extent, the petitioner or any individual
could be proceeded against in execution of a decree passed against the
erstwhile partnership firm. The liability of the partners of the erstwhile
firm could not, according to the petitioner, be treated as a basis for
proceeding indiscriminately against a subsequently constituted
company or persons who had not been shown to be partners of the
firm. The identity of the persons liable and the extent of their liability
therefore required adjudication before the decree could be enforced
against them.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 6 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
15. Lastly, he has submitted that the impugned order dated
26.09.2025, however, departed from this course. While the earlier
orders had required the status of the erstwhile firm, its partners, the
petitioner company and the persons against whom execution could
proceed to be ascertained, the learned National Commission held that
there was no requirement to apportion the liability amongst the
partners and dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking
determination of individual liability and restraint against the proposed
auction of the attached property. Learned counsel submitted that this
permitted the execution to proceed without determining the liability of
the persons against whom the decree was sought to be enforced,
despite the issue having been expressly kept open by the order dated
10.07.2024. The petitioner’s objection was, therefore, not merely to
the mode of execution, but to execution proceeding without first
determining the legal liability of the petitioner and the persons sought
to be proceeded against.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 11.05.2018 is not
maintainable as the same is an order within the meaning of section 27
of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and is thus, appealable before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court under section 27A.
17. He has also submitted that the petitioner’s case has proceeded
on a misconception of the scope of execution. The decree merely
named the party against whom the direction for payment was made; it
did not record that the decretal amount was to be apportioned
individually amongst the partners, nor did it prescribe any separate
shares. An executing court could not go behind the decree and could
not, on its own motion, introduce an apportionment of liability which
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 7 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
the decree itself did not contain. The execution proceedings were
confined to enforcing the decree as it stood and did not permit the
learned National Commission to recast the liability declared by the
decree.
18. He submitted that the directions issued by the learned National
Commission in the subsequent execution proceedings for furnishing
particulars of the erstwhile partners did not enlarge the decree or
create an obligation to determine their inter se liability. The exercise
was undertaken only for the purpose of enforcing the decree. The
petitioner’s contention that the learned National Commission was
required to first determine the proportionate liability of individual
partners, therefore, amounted to seeking a determination which was
neither contained in the decree nor permissible at the stage of
execution.
19. Lastly, submitted that the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 had
accordingly correctly held that there was no requirement for the
executing court to apportion the decretal liability amongst the
partners. The decree had attained finality and the remedies against it
had already been exhausted. The petitioner could not, under the guise
of objections to execution, seek to reopen the liability determined by
the decree or require the executing court to undertake an exercise
which would effectively modify its terms. The present petition was,
therefore, liable to be dismissed.
20. Heard. Perused the records.
21. In the opinion of this Court, two considerations arise for
determination in the present petition: (i) whether the learned National
Commission, after the decree having attained finality, and while
executing such decree, could have apportioned the liability amongst
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 8 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
the erstwhile partners and (ii) whether the learned National
Commission erred in holding that there was no requirement to
apportion such liability
22. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to delineate the scope
of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. This
Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not sit as an
appellate court over the orders passed by the learned National
Commission. The appreciation of facts and material by the learned
National Commission cannot be re-examined merely because another
view may be possible. The jurisdiction is confined to examining
whether the learned National Commission acted within the bounds of
its jurisdiction and whether there was any patent failure to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it.
23. It is apposite to mention that as recorded in the order dated
30.08.2023, it was the petitioner’s own case that the partnership firm
had stood dissolved in 2006, whereas the judgment and decree came
to be passed on 02.11.2012. The petitioner, therefore during the period
of 2006-2012 was aware of the alleged dissolution and had the
opportunity to raise any objections regarding apportionment of
liability before the learned National Commission and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Once the decree came to be passed thereafter and has
attained finality, the petitioner cannot, at the stage of execution, seek
to reopen the decree or require the executing court to examine a
question which would have the effect of going behind the decree,
especially when he had the opportunity to raise the same objection at
the relevant time and before the appropriate fora.
24. The petitioner was first directed, on 02.02.2018, to produce the
dissolution deed, the details of all the partners with their addresses and
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 9 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
affidavits confirming the dissolution. These directions were not
complied with, resulting in the order dated 11.05.2018. Thereafter, the
issue was again considered on 30.08.2023, followed by further
directions on 10.01.2024, 20.03.2024 and 10.07.2024. On 20.03.2024,
the petitioner was specifically directed to furnish, inter alia, the date of
dissolution, complete particulars of the erstwhile partners and the
particulars of those partners who subsequently became Directors of
the petitioner. On 10.07.2024, when the petitioner stated that there
were 17 partners at the time of dissolution, the affidavit furnished
particulars of only 10, leading to a further direction to furnish
complete particulars. The issue of liability was expressly kept open for
consideration on merits. Thus, over a period of several years, the
petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities to substantiate the very
case which it now seeks to rely upon. A party raising an objection
must also place before the Court the material necessary to establish it.
Having failed to comply with repeated directions for production of the
relevant documents and particulars, the petitioner could not thereafter
complain that its contention was not adjudicated in the manner it
desired.
25. The impugned order dated 11.05.2018, issuing bailable warrants
against the directors of the petitioner firm, was passed in view of the
repeated non-compliance to execute the decree dated 02.11.2012 and
the failure to place the Dissolution Deed and affidavits of the partners
on record, despite directions issued by the learned National
Commission. The impugned order records that such continued non-
compliance indicated an intention to evade execution of the decree. In
this context, Section 27(1) and (2) of the Consumer Protection Act,
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 10 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
1986, provides for penal consequences for failure to comply with
orders passed by the learned National Commission.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal
3
v Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth and Ors. has noted that the penalties
leviable under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are
remedial in nature and the intent behind them is to ensure that the
service providers fulfil their obligations towards the consumers, and
comply with all the orders passed by the respective consumer fora.
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Palm Groves Cooperative
4
Housing Society v M/s Magar Girme & Gaikwad Associates has
noted that the legislative scheme of sections 71-73 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, wherein sections 72 and 73 are pari materia to
section 27 and 27A of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, is to
ensure compliance with every order passed by the respective
consumer fora.
27. In the present case, the bailable warrants issued vide order dated
11.05.2018, are intended to ensure compliance with the respective
directions and fall within the gamut of section 27 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, thereby making them appealable before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court under section 27A. Thus, a challenge to the
order dated 11.05.2018 is not maintainable before this Court.
28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
respondents also drew the attention of this Court to the order dated
12.01.2026 passed by the learned National Commission, recording
that the property situated at Plot No. 20, otherwise CAT-02
(Godowns), Transport Nagar, SDA Scheme, Sarai Road, Village
3
2025 4 SCC 629
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1790
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 11 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06
Jwalapur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Haridwar, admeasuring
approximately 461.5 sq. mtrs., had been auctioned for
Rs.1,31,00,000/- and the Collector of District Haridwar was directed
to remit the auctioned amount to the respondent/DH. Learned counsel
submitted that the decree was for Rs.44,00,778/- with interest at 9%
per annum from 02.11.2000 and costs of Rs.50,000/-, and that the
decretal amount had consequently been recovered and nothing further
survived. This Court does not deem it appropriate to express any
opinion on the said contention, particularly when the execution
proceedings are stated by the petitioner to be still pending before the
learned National Commission.
29. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
infirmity in the impugned orders. Present petition, along with pending
applications if any are dismissed.
30. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2026/ AS/sg
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2405/2025 Page 12 of 12
Signed By:ANKITA RAI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:21:06