SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.11.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 16825 of 2011) filed by Kanwar Sat Pal Singh (appellant herein) challenging the order dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission ') upholding the order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure P -4) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum '), vide which appellant Kanwar Sat Pal Singh and Ashok Kumar, both Directors of M/s Shivcon Infrastructures Enterprises Ltd., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the company '), were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders, passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.
(2.) IN the present case, on a complaint filed by Ashutosh Goyal alias Ashu Goyal (respondent No. 3 herein) against the company and its four Directors, including the appellant, vide order dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure P -2), the appellant as well as three other Directors of the company were directed to refund to him a sum of Rs. 6.50 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits till realisation, besides compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - for mental agony and harassment suffered by him at the hands of those Directors, including the appellant, and for adopting an unfair trade practice by them. All those Directors, including the appellant, were ordered to comply with the said order within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which they were to pay the amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.6.2008, till realisation. Undisputedly, the aforesaid order dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure P -2) has become final. When the said order was not complied with, respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 27 of the Act for punishing the appellant and other Directors of the company for not complying with the above order.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that when the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were pending before the District Forum, the appellant appeared through his counsel and sought time to make the payment, upon which the case was adjourned to 21.5.2010. On that day, payment was not made. Again, on request of the appellant, the case was adjourned to 29.6.2010, on which date, neither the appellant nor any body on his behalf appeared. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 5.7.2010, 9.7.2010 and 12.7.2010, but no payment was made by the appellant to respondent No. 3.;