Delhi HC Rejects Transport Company’s Bid To Apportion Final Decree Among Partners, Citing Failure To Produce Dissolution Records

A consumer complaint concerning a lost consignment was allowed against the petitioner, and the resulting decree for Rs.44,00,778, interest and costs attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

In execution, the petitioner contended that the decree was against an erstwhile partnership firm, dissolved in 2006, whereas the petitioner was a subsequently constituted private limited company.

The National Commission directed the petitioner to provide documents and particulars concerning the firm, its partners and the company, but recorded that the petitioner had not supplied complete particulars.

It dismissed the petitioner’s Section 47 CPC application in 2018 and, in 2025, rejected its application seeking determination of individual liability and restraint of an auction, holding that the decree did not require apportionment among partners.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 227.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; it intervenes to address jurisdictional error or failure to exercise jurisdiction, not merely to substitute its view on facts.

An executing forum cannot go behind a final decree or alter its terms, including by introducing an apportionment of liability not specified in the decree.

Section 47 CPC concerns questions arising between parties to a suit relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

Sections 27 and 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provide, respectively, for consequences of non-compliance with consumer-forum orders and an appeal from an order made under Section 27; orders attracting Section 27 are appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 27A.

The Court cited Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth, 2025 4 SCC 629, and Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society v. M/s Magar Girme & Gaikwad Associates, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1790, for the remedial purpose of statutory provisions designed to secure compliance with consumer-forum orders.

The Court held that the petitioner could not use execution proceedings to reopen questions that could have been raised before the decree became final, particularly as the alleged dissolution predated the decree.

The Commission had repeatedly directed the petitioner to produce the dissolution deed and complete particulars of the partners, but the petitioner failed to provide the requested material; it therefore could not complain that its liability case had not been determined as it wished.

The decree did not provide for individual apportionment, and requiring the executing forum to apportion liability would impermissibly alter the decree.

The 2018 order was treated as falling within Section 27, making a challenge to it appealable under Section 27A rather than maintainable before the High Court under Article 227.

It held that the execution forum was not required to apportion liability among the partners and that the challenge to the 2018 order was not maintainable before the High Court.