K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) These appeals involve a common question. The opposite parties are one and the same in all these matters though the complainants are different. The appeals are disposed of by the following order. The complainants in the individual complaints had filed Execution Petitions against the opposite parties for execution of the orders passed in the complaint filed by them in COP Nos.41, 42, 43 & 44 of 2003. The Opposite parties were directed to pay the respective complainants various amounts and since the opposite parties did not comply with the order in the main complaints, execution was levied by the respective complainants.
(2.) The opposite parties contended that they were not able to mobilise the amounts to be deposited for filing the appeals within the stipulated time and hence the appeals were rejected ; that the Government had made attachment against all their properties to protect the interest of the deposit holders as there were cases filed before the TNPID Court, Chennai and the special Court passed orders for attachment of the borrowers properties for the recovery of dues to the Firm with the opposite parties to settle the amount to the deposit holders and that they should have deemed to settled the matter.
(3.) The District Forum after giving a fair opportunity to the opposite parties, by order dated 14/11/2005 in individual cases, directed the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants for arrest and production of the opposite parties before the District Forum to punish them under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is as against the said orders these appeals have been filed.;