Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Nitin Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Amit Agarwal & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 760 of 2022 & CM APPL. 33740 of 2022
Decided On : 10-08-2023
Article 277 - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - The court held that the petitioner's fresh application before the NCDRC for seeking a direction for permanent release of his passport rendered the present petition infructuous, while reserving the petitioner's rights to challenge the order passed by NCDRC in his fresh application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of the NCDRC directing the petitioner to deposit his passport with the Registry of the NCDRC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had already approached the NCDRC with a fresh application for the same relief, rendering the present petition infructuous. The court reserved the petitioner's rights to challenge the order passed by NCDRC in his fresh application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's fresh application before the NCDRC rendered the present petition infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner had already sought the same relief through a fresh application before the NCDRC, the present petition was disposed of as infructuous, while reserving the petitioner's rights to challenge the order passed by NCDRC in his fresh application.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the present petition as infructuous, while reserving the petitioner's rights to challenge the order passed by NCDRC in his fresh application.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution of the India impugns the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (`NCDRC') in Execution Application No. 99/2020 titled as "Amit Agarwal v. Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt. Ltd." and other connected matters, whereby the NCDRC directed the Petitioner herein to deposit his passport with the Registry of the NCDRC.
2. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondents states that the Respondents herein are home buyers. She states that the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 was passed in execution proceedings. She states that in compliance with the interim relief granted by this Court on 25.08.2022, the Petitioner herein had duly travelled overseas and has thereafter on his return deposited the passport with NCDRC.
3.1. She states that on 26.07.2023, the Petitioner herein has filed a substantive application before NCDRC for seeking a direction for permanent release of his passport.
3.2. She states that the matter was argued and orders have been reserved on the said application. She states that since the Petitioner herein has availed his remedy by filing a fresh application before the NCDRC for the same relief as sought in this petition; and considering the fact that the Petitioner has not been appearing in this matter since 20.12.2022, the present petition be disposed of.
4. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents and perused the record.
5. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has already approached NCDRC in a fresh application for same reliefs, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous; reserving however, the Petitioner's rights to challenge the order, which may be passed by NCDRC in his application dated 26.07.2023 without being prejudiced by the disposal of this petition.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous. The pending application stand disposed of.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authority of the NCDRC to consider the merits of the appeal.
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to supervisory oversight, not appellate review; status as 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to commercial property pur....
The main legal point established is that a party should not suffer due to the mistake of its counsel, and that the court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is determined by the territories w....
The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and no....
The court mandates timely finalization of proceedings following a show cause notice to ensure due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
