Consumer commissions must consider applications to cancel execution warrants under Section 70(2) CrPC.

The petitioners, former office-bearers, had been held jointly and severally liable under an award dated 17 May 2025 in Consumer Complaint No. 278 of 2024.

Respondent No. 3 initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 257 of 2025.

The petitioners tendered an application under Section 47 read with Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and a separate application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The District Commission did not take either application on record.

The petitioners had not appealed the award; an earlier writ petition had been withdrawn with liberty to appeal, but no appeal was filed.

They sought directions to receive and decide the applications and to quash the non-bailable warrants issued in execution.

1. Whether the District Commission was required to take on record the petitioners’ CPC application challenging their personal liability under the award, despite their failure to appeal the award.

2. Whether the District Commission was required to take on record the petitioners’ application under Section 70(2) CrPC seeking recall of the warrant issued in execution.

Section 47 read with Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 CPC was invoked to question the petitioners’ liability in execution; however, the Court held that the application sought to re-agitate an issue decided by the original award, which the petitioners had not appealed despite having an appellate remedy.

The Court treated the application under Section 70(2) CrPC as one seeking recall of the warrant issued in the execution proceedings and directed the Commission to take it on record and decide it in accordance with law.

The petitioners had participated in and contested the original proceedings, but did not challenge the resulting award through the available appeal.

Their CPC application therefore could not be used in execution to reopen the issue of liability already determined by the award.

The Section 70(2) CrPC application stood differently: because a warrant had been issued in execution, the Court held that the petitioners could seek its recall through that application, which the Commission was required to receive and consider.

The Court declined to interfere with the Commission’s refusal to accept the CPC application, holding that the petitioners could not re-agitate liability in execution after failing to appeal the award.

It directed the District Commission to take the Section 70(2) CrPC application on record and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.