MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

                        [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1181                          1181


  MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                             A
               PRIVATE LIMITED
                                 v.
            SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021)                      B
                      DECEMBER 07, 2021
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.51 – Powers of National
Commission to grant conditional stay of order passed by State
                                                                       C
Commission, on condition of deposit of the entire amount and/or
any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount awarded – Orders
passed by State Commission, appellants directed to refund the
amount paid by home buyers with interest – Orders stayed by
National Commission, directing appellants to deposit the entire
decretal amount with interest, if any, with the State Commission –     D
On appeal, held: Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered
by the State Commission under second proviso to s.51 is mandatory
for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission – Said
pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of interim order
of stay by the National Commission – While staying the order passed
                                                                       E
by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a
conditional stay of the order directing the appellant to deposit the
entire and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount
awarded by the State Commission, however by assigning cogent
reasons and/or pass a speaking order when granting such
conditional stay – In the present case, the National Commission        F
passed the impugned orders, mechanically without assigning any
reasons – Matters remanded to National Commission to decide the
stay applications afresh – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.19 –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.5.
     Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.51 – Pre-deposit condition      G
– Object of – Discussed.
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered
by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of
                                                                       H
                               1181
1182           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment
       of an appeal by the National Commission. The object of the said
       pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals. The said pre-
       deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the
       National Commission. While considering the stay application in
       staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National
 B
       Commission can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s)
       to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50
       per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State
       Commission. However, at the same time, the National
       Commission has to assign some cogent reasons and/or pass a
 C     speaking order when the conditional stay of the order passed by
       the State Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire
       amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount
       either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and
       considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the
       National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order
 D
       passed by the State Commission on deposit of the entire amount
       and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as
       ordered by the State Commission in the aforesaid manner.
       [Para 15][1192-E-H; 1193-A-C]
             1.2 The impugned order(s) passed by the National
 E     Commission on the I.A.(s)/stay application(s) directing the
       appellant(s) to deposit the entire decretal amount while staying
       the respective order(s) passed by the State Commission have
       been passed mechanically and without assigning any reason(s)
       and/or no speaking order is passed. Therefore, the matters are
 F     remanded to the National Commission to decide the said
       application(s) afresh and pass an appropriate order on the said
       application(s) in light of the observations made herein.
       [Para 16][1193-C-E]
            Shreenath Corporation and Ors. Vs. Consumer
 G          Education and Research Society and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC
            657 : [2014] 9 SCR 356 – relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
       [2014] 9 SCR 356              relied on              Para 7.2

 H
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                  1183
       PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7098 of                A
2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2021 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in IA/3621/2021
in FA/330/2021.
        With                                                                 B

        Civil Appeal Nos. 7099, 7100, 7101, 7104, 7102 and 7103 of 2021.
     Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Pawan Kumar Ray, Riju Mani Talukdar,
Deepak Goel, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Ms. Niharika
Ahluwalia, Ankit Khera, Ms. Sneha Kohli, Advs. for the Appellant.            C
     Jitender Vashisht, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash
Matwankar, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                             D
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”) dated
27.09.2021 in I.A. No. 3621 of 2021 in First Appeal No. 330 of 2021 by
which, the National Commission, while staying the order passed by the
State Commission has directed the appellant to deposit the entire decretal   E
amount with the State Commission, the original appellant – builder – M/
s. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited, has
preferred the Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021.
      2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the National Commission dated 31.08.2021 passed in I.A.            F
No. 5880 of 2021; I.A. No.5881 of 2021; I.A. No.5882 of 2021; I.A.
No. 5883 of 2021 and I.A. No. 5884 of 2021 in respect of First Appeal
Nos. 856 of 2020, 857 of 2020, 858 of 2020, 859 of 2020 and 860 of 2020
by which the National Commission has dismissed the said I.A.s and
refused to modify or review or recall its earlier order dated 04.02.2021     G
by which, while admitting the respective appeals, the National Commission
granted stay of the orders passed by the State Commission, subject to
deposit of entire decretal amount with up-to-date interest, if any, the
original appellant/applicant – builder – M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. has
preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 7099 to 7104 of 2021.
                                                                             H
1184             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A            3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that feeling aggrieved
       and dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission directing
       the appellant(s) to refund the amount paid by the respective home buyers
       with interest, the appellant(s) have preferred the first appeals before the
       National Commission under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act,
       2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2019”). That in the said
 B
       appeal(s), the respective appellant(s)/applicant(s) filed the said
       application(s) to stay the respective order(s) passed by the State
       Commission.
              4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as the said respective
 C     appellant(s) have deposited 50 per cent of the decretal amount by
       preferring the appeal(s), which the appellant(s) are required to deposit
       as a pre-deposit at the time of preferring the appeal(s) as required under
       Section 19 of the Act, 2019. But the National Commission has stayed
       the order passed by the State Commission on condition that the appellant(s)
       shall deposit the entire decretal amount with interest, if any, with the
 D     State Commission. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order(s)
       passed by the National Commission passed on the stay application(s)
       directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire decretal amount with
       interest, if any, while staying the respective order(s) passed by the State
       Commission, the original appellant(s) have preferred the present appeals.
 E           5. Shri Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on
       behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021 and Ms. Kanika
       Agnihotri, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant –
       M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 7099 to 7104 of 2021.
              6. Shri Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
 F     respective appellant has vehemently submitted that the National
       Commission cannot pass an order to deposit the entire decretal amount
       and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the
       order of the State Commission while entertaining the appeal in view of
       the second proviso to Section 51 of the Act, 2019. It is submitted that
 G     according to the statutory intent, the requirement of deposit at best can
       be 50 per cent of the decretal amount and not higher than that. Learned
       counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellant(s) have heavily
       relied upon the number of orders passed by this Court against several
       orders passed by the National Commission granting stay of the order of
       the State Commission subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount
 H
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                        1185
  PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

with the State commission and this Court has disposed of the respective            A
special leave petition(s) with the direction that the appellant(s) shall deposit
50 per cent of the decretal amount in view of the second proviso to
Section 51 of the Act, 2019.
       6.1 It is further submitted that assuming that the National
Commission can pass the order to deposit the entire amount and/or any              B
amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount while staying the order
passed by the State Commission, in that case also such order(s) on stay
application(s) is/are not to be passed mechanically. It is submitted that
power to grant stay are akin to power to grant stay of the decree passed
by the Civil Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code,1908,          C
namely Order XLI Rule 5.
       6.2 It is submitted that a speaking order is required to be passed
by the National Commission, if on facts, the National Commission
proposes to pass an order to deposit the entire decretal amount and/or
any amount higher than 50 per cent. It is submitted that directing the             D
appellant(s) to deposit the entire decretal amount/entire amount would
be unreasonable and taking away the right of the appellant/aggrieved
party to challenge the order passed by the State Commission in an appeal
under Section 51 of the Act, 2019.
       6.3 It is submitted that considering second proviso to Section 51           E
of the Act, 2019, it can be said that the legislative intent is that before the
appeal of the aggrieved party is considered by the National Commission
on merits, he has to deposit 50 per cent of the decretal amount and it is
sufficient that 50 per cent amount of the decretal amount is deposited
and not higher than that.
                                                                                   F
       7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complaint(s)-
respondent(s) in the appeals preferred by the TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
has vehemently submitted that as such the appellant - TDI Infrastructure
Ltd. has not challenged the original order dated 04.02.2021 directing the
appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount ordered by the State commission
                                                                                   G
as a condition for grant of stay. It is submitted that thereafter by order
dated 23.03.2021 the National Commission dismissed the respective
appeal(s) for waiver of the condition of deposit of the entire decretal
amount by earlier order dated 04.02.2021 and the same is also not
challenged. It is submitted that what is challenged is the subsequent
order dated 31.08.2021 passed in respective I.A. Nos. 5880 of 2021 to              H
1186             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     5884 of 2021 in respective First Appeal Nos. 856 of 2020 to 860 of 2020,
       which were filed for modification of the earlier order dated 04.02.2021.
       It is therefore submitted that in the absence of any challenge to the
       earlier main National Commission’s orders dated 04.02.2021 and
       23.03.2021, the present appeal(s)/special leave petition(s) challenging
       only the order dated 31.08.2021 refusing to modify the earlier order
 B
       dated 04.02.2021 is not maintainable and the same is not required to be
       entertained.
              7.1 On merits, while opposing the present appeals, it is vehemently
       submitted that as such the order passed by the State Commission is akin
       to a money decree and therefore while staying the money decree the
 C
       National Commission is absolutely justified in directing the appellant –
       judgment debtor to deposit the entire decretal amount while staying the
       order passed by the State Commission. It is submitted that even otherwise
       in the present case the order passed by the State Commission is to refund
       the amount to the respective home buyers, which they actually deposited
 D     and paid to the builder. It is therefore submitted that it is their money that
       the State Commission has directed to refund. It is therefore submitted
       that as such the National Commission has rightly directed to deposit the
       entire decretal amount.
             7.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
 E     behalf of the original complainant(s) that the issue, whether the National
       Commission can pass an order to deposit the entire amount and/or any
       amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as such is no longer res
       integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shreenath
       Corporation and Ors. Vs. Consumer Education and Research
       Society and Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 657.
 F
              7.3 It is submitted that while considering the pari materia provision
       under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the
       “Act, 1986) second proviso to Section 19, it is observed and held that the
       pre-deposit condition has no nexus with grant of interim order of stay. It
       is held that while considering the stay of the order passed by the State
 G     Commission, the National Commission can direct the appellant(s) to
       deposit the entire amount. It is submitted that deposit of 50 per cent of
       the amount awarded by the State Commission would be a pre-condition
       to entertain the appeal filed by the aggrieved party-appellant and that is
       the minimum mandatory requirement before the appeal and application
 H     for stay is considered on merits.
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                    1187
  PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       7.4 It is submitted that so far as the earlier orders passed by this    A
Court directing the appellant(s) to deposit only 50 per cent of the amount
is concerned, it is submitted that in none of the orders any law is laid
down by this Court. It is submitted that on the contrary, the issue involved
in the present appeal(s) is directly and squarely covered by the decision
of this Court in the case of Shreenath Corporation and Ors. (supra)
                                                                               B
by which this Hon’ble Court has considered the issue in detail on merits
and has considered the object and purpose of deposit of the amount as a
pre-deposit. It is submitted that in the case of Shreenath Corporation
and Ors., this Court also considered the Order XLI Rule 5 and Order
XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC alongwith the object and purpose of the
deposit of the amount as a pre-deposit before the appeal is entertained        C
under Section 19 of the Act, 1986.
      7.5 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
       8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
                                                                               D
length.
       9. The short question which is posed for consideration of this
Court is:
       “Whether in an appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 and while considering the stay application to stay        E
the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission
can pass an order to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher
than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State
Commission while entertaining the appeal under Section 51 of the Act,
2019?”                                                                         F
      10. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, Section 51 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is required to be referred to, which
reads as under:-
      “51. Appeal to National Commission.—(1) Any person
      aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise           G
      of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of
      sub-section (1) of Section 47 may prefer an appeal against such
      order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days
      from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be
      prescribed:                                                              H
1188             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A                    Provided that the National Commission shall not entertain
             the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless
             it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within
             that period:
                    Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required
 B           to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission,
             shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the
             appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner
             as may be prescribed.
             (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act or by
 C           any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the
             National Commission from any order passed in appeal by any
             State Commission, if the National Commission is satisfied that the
             case involves a substantial question of law.
             (3) In an appeal involving a question of law, the memorandum of
 D           appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved
             in the appeal.
             (4) Where the National Commission is satisfied that a substantial
             question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that
             question and hear the appeal on that question:
 E
                    Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to
             take away or abridge the power of the National Commission to
             hear, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the appeal on any
             other substantial question of law, if it is satisfied that the case
 F           involves such question of law.
             (5) An appeal may lie to the National Commission under this section
             from an order passed ex parte by the State Commission.”
              11. On a fair reading of Section 51 of the Act, 2019, more
       particularly, second proviso to Section 51, it appears that the appellant(s)
 G
       in an appeal against the order passed by the State Commission may
       prefer an appeal, however, before the appeal is entertained by the
       National Commission, the appellant(s) has to deposit 50 per cent of the
       amount. So, it is the pre-condition to deposit 50 per cent of the amount
       as ordered by the State Commission before his appeal is entertained by
 H     the National Commission. Therefore, it is a condition precedent to deposit
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                      1189
  PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

50% of the amount before his appeal is entertained by the National               A
Commission. However, that does not take away the jurisdiction of the
National Commission to order to deposit the entire amount and or any
amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount while considering the stay
application to stay the order passed by the State Commission. Rules for
entertainment of an appeal on deposit of 50 per cent of the amount
                                                                                 B
ordered by the State Commission, which is a statutory pre-deposit and
the grant of interim order on the stay application subject to deposit of
further amount are distinct and different. Pre-deposit condition as per
second proviso to Section 51 has no nexus with the grant of interim
order of stay by the National Commission subject to deposit of the amount
awarded by the State Commission.                                                 C
       12. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in
the case of Shreenath Corporation and Ors. (supra). In the aforesaid
case, this Court was considering the pari materia provision under the
Act, 1986 and second proviso to Section 19, which provided pre-deposit
of amount specified therein, i.e., 50 per cent of the amount awarded by          D
the State Commission or Rs.35,000/- whichever is less. In the aforesaid
case, this Court had occasion to consider the object and purpose of pre-
deposit condition while entertaining the appeal under Section 19 by the
National Commission, against the order passed by the State Commission.
In paragraphs 8 to 10, it is observed and held as under:-                        E
      “8. This Court in State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [(2000)
      7 SCC 348], while dealing with the case of waiver of “pre-deposit”
      in an appeal under first proviso to Section 39(5) of the Haryana
      General Sales Tax Act held: (SCC p. 353, para 7)
             “7. … There cannot be any dispute that right of appeal is           F
             the creature of the statute and has to be exercised within
             the limits and according to the procedure provided by law.
             It is filed for invoking the powers of a superior court to
             redress the error of the court below, if any. No right of
             appeal can be conferred except by express words. An appeal,         G
             for its maintainability, must have a clear authority of law.
             Sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act vests a discretion
             in the appellate authority to entertain the appeal if it is filed
             within sixty days and the amount of tax assessed along with
             penalty and interest, if any, recoverable from the persons
                                                                                 H
1190            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A                 has been paid. The aforesaid restriction is subject to the
                   proviso conferring discretion upon the appellate authority
                   to dispense with the deposit of the amount only on proof of
                   the fact that the appellant was unable to pay the amount.
                   Before deciding the appeal, the appellate authority affords
                   an opportunity to the party concerned to either pay the
 B
                   amount or make out a case for the stay in terms of proviso
                   to sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act. Once the
                   conditions specified under sub-section (5) of Section 39 are
                   complied with, the appeal is born for being disposed of on
                   merits after hearing both the sides.”
 C
             9. The second proviso to Section 19 of the Act mandates pre-
             deposit for consideration of an appeal before the National
             Commission. It requires 50% of the amount in terms of an order
             of the State Commission or Rs 35,000, whichever is less for
             entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission. Unless
 D           the appellant has deposited the pre-deposit amount, the appeal
             cannot be entertained by the National Commission. A pre-deposit
             condition to deposit 50% of the amount in terms of the order of
             the State Commission or Rs 35,000 being condition precedent for
             entertaining appeal, it has no nexus with the order of stay, as such
             an order may or may not be passed by the National Commission.
 E
             The condition of pre-deposit is there to avoid frivolous appeals.
             10. It is not the case of any of the appellants that the Consumer
             Forum, including the State and National Commissions, has no
             power to pass interim order of stay. If the National Commission
             after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to
 F           stay the amount awarded, it is open to the National Commission
             to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of
             stay. Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant
             to order impugned in the appeal stand on different footings, at two
             different stages. One (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the
 G           appeal and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie case,
             balance of convenience and irreparable loss of party seeking such
             stay.”
             13. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by this
       Court in the case of Shreenath Corporation and Ors. (supra).
 H     Therefore, it is held that National Commission can pass an order to
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                  1191
  PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of       A
the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission while staying
the order passed by the State commission.
       However, at the same time, while considering the stay application
against the order passed by the State Commission and while passing the
order to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per      B
cent of the amount, the National Commission has to assign some reasons
and pass a speaking order why the conditional stay is being granted on
condition of deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than
50 per cent of the amount. Such an order on the stay application is not to
be passed mechanically. Even in the case of Shreenath Corporation
and Ors. (supra), it is observed that if the National Commission after       C
hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to stay the
amount awarded by the State Commission, it is open to the National
Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including a conditional
order of stay. The order passed by the State Commission directing the
appellant to refund the amount and/or pay any amount higher than 50          D
per cent can be said to be akin to a money decree. Even as per Order
XLI Rule 5, the general rule is that normally there shall not be any
unconditional stay of a money decree, however, at the same time, the
Appellate Court may pass an appropriate conditional order while staying
the impugned decree depending upon the facts of the case and by giving
cogent reasons. Therefore, while considering the stay application            E
requesting to stay the order passed by the State Commission and as
observed and held hereinabove, the National Commission can pass an
order to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per
cent of the amount while staying the order passed by the State
commission, however, the National Commission has to pass a speaking          F
order giving some reasons why in the facts of the particular case the
conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission is to be
passed subject to deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher
than 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the State Commission and
that too after giving an opportunity to the appellant as well as to the
respondent. The order on the stay application is not to be passed            G
mechanically. It must reflect an application of mind by the National
Commission why the order passed by the State Commission is to be
stayed on condition of deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount
higher than 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the State Commission.
However, at the same time, there is no discretion at all to stay the order   H
1192                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     passed by the State Commission subject to deposit of any amount less
       than 50 per cent of the amount which is required to be deposited as a
       pre-deposit before the appeal is entertained as per second proviso to
       Section 51 of the Act, 2019.
              14. Now in so far as the various orders passed by this Court
 B     relied upon by the learned counsel for the respective appellant(s) by
       which, the special leave petition(s) have been disposed of directing the
       appellant(s) to deposit only 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the
       State Commission are concerned, at the outset, it is noted that in none of
       the cases any law has been laid down by this Court. It appears that
       while issuing a notice(s), the appellant(s) was/were directed to deposit
 C     50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission and
       thereafter without discussing any law and/or considering anything on
       merits and the scheme of the Act, 2019, more particularly, Section 51 of
       the Act, 2019, the special leave petition(s) has/have been disposed of.
       On the contrary, there is a direct binding decision of this Court in the
 D     case of Shreenath Corporation and Ors. (supra) laying down the
       law after discussing the scheme, object and purpose of pre-deposit and
       the power of the National Commission to grant conditional stay of deposit
       of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the
       amount.
 E           15. The sum and substance of the above discussion and our
       conclusions would be that:-
             (i)      pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the
                      State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of
                      the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for
 F                    entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission;
             (ii)     the object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid
                      frivolous appeals;
             (iii)    the said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant
                      of stay by the National Commission;
 G
             (iv)     while considering the stay application in staying the order
                      passed by the State Commission, the National Commission
                      can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s) to
                      deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than
                      50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State
 H                    Commission;
   MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS                                    1193
  PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      (v)    however, at the same time, the National Commission has to         A
             assign some cogent reasons and/or pass a speaking order
             when the conditional stay of the order passed by the State
             Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire amount
             and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount
             either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and
                                                                               B
             considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
      (vi)   Thus, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay
             of the order passed by the State Commission on deposit of
             the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per
             cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission in
             the aforesaid manner.                                             C

       16. Considering the impugned order(s) passed by the National
Commission, it appears that the said order(s) on the I.A.(s)/stay
application(s) directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire decretal
amount while staying the respective order(s) passed by the State
Commission have been passed mechanically and without assigning any             D
reason(s) and/or no speaking order is passed. Therefore, the matters
are remanded to the National Commission to decide the said application(s)
afresh and pass an appropriate order on the said application(s) in light of
the observations made hereinabove. Till then, the respondent(s) herein
shall not take any coercive steps against the appellant(s) herein.             E
       17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above, all the appeals succeed in part. The respective I.A.(s) in respective
appeal(s) are ordered to be restored to the file of the National Commission
and the National Commission to pass fresh orders on the respective
I.A.(s)/stay application(s) and pass speaking order/reasoned order             F
considering the observations made hereinabove. It will be open for the
original complainant(s) to submit that as it is a money decree and the
order passed by the State Commission is to refund the amount deposited
by them as a home buyer, therefore, the appellant(s) be directed to
deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of
the amount and the same may be considered by the National Commission           G
after giving opportunity to the appellant(s). At the same time, it will also
be open for the appellant(s) to pray for an unconditional stay without
deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent
of the amount. The said contentions may be considered by the National
Commission while exercising the discretion and considering the respective      H
1194            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


 A     stay application(s). The aforesaid exercise has to be completed within a
       period of eight weeks from today. Either of the parties to place a copy of
       the present judgment and order before the National Commission forthwith.
              All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only
       with the law laid down on the powers of the National Commission to
 B     grant conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission on
       condition of deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than
       50 per cent of the amount as observed hereinabove.


       Divya Pandey                                          Appeals partly allowed.
 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H