2010 Supreme(SC) 517

2010 (5) Supreme 737
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Om Prakash Saini — Appellant
versus
DCM Ltd. and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.4902-04 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26730-26732 of 2008)
Decided on : 6-7-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Since Consumer Protection Act 1986 Act is a special statute enacted by Parliament for better protection of the interest of consumers and a wholesome mechanism has been put in place for adjudication of consumer disputes, the remedy of appeal available to a person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission cannot but be treated as an effective alternative remedy.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 227-Appellant invested Rs.1,90,000 in the Fully Secured Debentures floated by respondent No.1- The debentures were due for payment on 14.8. 1998, but just before that date, respondent No.1 informed appellant and other similarly situated persons that due to financial difficulties it would not be possible to pay amount of maturity on scheduled dates and a revised scheme had been worked out for payment of the dues- As respondent No.1 did not pay amount as per revised scheme, appellant filed a complaint before State Commission- State Commission allowed the complaint- Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the State Commission by filing an appeal under Section 21 of the 1986 Act but withdrew the same - Thereafter, it filed a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, which was allowed by Single Judge –Appeals thereagainst-Admittedly, respondent No.1 had availed the alternative remedy available to it under Section 21 by filing an appeal against order of State Commission- During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 chose to challenge order of the State Commission by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was entertained by Single Judge on the basis of assurance given by counsel that appeal filed before National Commission would be withdrawn-The order passed by Single Judge or the one by which petition filed by respondent No.1 was finally disposed off did not contain any indication as to why Single Judge thought it proper to make a departure from the rule that High Court would not entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person- During pendency of appeal filed by respondent No.1 under Section 21 of 1986 Act, Single Judge was not at all justified in entertaining petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution merely because he thought that State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint in view of the scheme sanctioned by the Company Judge under Section 391 read with Sections 392 and 394 of the Companies Act- Impugned order of High Court set aside and matter remitted to High Court for fresh adjudication-Appeals allowed. (Paras 13 to 15)

       Facts of the Case :

       Appellant herein in the instant case invested Rs.1,90,000 in the Fully Secured Debentures floated by respondent No.1. The debentures were due for payment on 14.8. 1998, but just before that date, respondent No.1 informed appellant and other similarly situated persons that due to financial difficulties it would not be possible to pay amount of maturity on scheduled dates and a revised scheme had been worked out for payment of the dues. As respondent No.1 did not pay amount as per revised scheme, appellant filed a complaint before State Commission. State Commission allowed said complaint- Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the State Commission by filing an appeal under Section 21 of the 1986 Act but withdrew the same. Thereafter, it filed a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, which was allowed by Single Judge.

       2.Present appeals have been filed against said order.

       Findings of the Court :

       Admittedly, respondent No.1 had availed the alternative remedy available to it under Section 21 by filing an appeal against order of State Commission.During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1chose to challenge order of the State Commission by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was entertained by Single Judge on the basis of assurance given by counsel that appeal filed before National Commission would be withdrawn. The order passed by Single Judge or the one by which petition filed by respondent No.1 was finally disposed of did not contain any indication as to why Single Judge thought it proper to make a departure from the rule that High Court would not entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. During pendency of appeal filed by respondent No.1 under Section 21 of 1986 Act, Single Judge was not at all justified in entertaining petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution merely because he thought that State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint in view of the scheme sanctioned by the Company Judge under Section 391 read with Sections 392 an 394 of the Companies Act. Impugned order of High Court was set aside and matter was remitted to High Court for fresh adjudication. Appeals were allowed.

       Result : Appeals allowed.