IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Orris Infrastructure Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6769 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 6770 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for review of previous court order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ petitions seeking to set aside prior orders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner aggrieved by consumer order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. contention on jurisdiction post-repeal of consumer protection act. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. arguments regarding the effect of amendments. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. supreme court's interpretation of statutory remedies. (Para 15 , 18) |
| 7. court's observations on jurisdictional continuity. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 8. legislative intent behind transitional provisions. (Para 22 , 30) |
| 9. repeal provisions protect existing rights. (Para 23 , 25 , 28) |
| 10. continuation of legal proceedings despite repeal. (Para 26 , 27 , 31) |
| 11. final dismissal of review applications with costs. (Para 32 , 34 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
REV. PET 9/2021 & CM APPL. 9166/2021 in W.P.(C) 6769/2020 REV. PET 8/2021 & CM APPL. 9726/2021 in W.P.(C) 6770/2020
1. These Review Application(s) have been filed by the writ petitioner seeking review/recall of the Order dated 03.11.2020 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition(s) filed by the petitioner on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy in form of a statutory appeal, and granting leave to the petitioner to avail of the same.
2. Before considering the submissions made in support of the Review Applications filed by the petitioner, brief background and chronology leading to the present Review Applications need to be noticed.
3. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6769 of 2020 was filed praying for the following relief:
"(a) issue writ appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) and set aside the order dated 20.07.2020 passed in CC No 3814 of 2017 in "Sanjay Gupta Vs. Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." and the connected matters adjudicated vide the common order and judgment; and
(b) As a consequence, pass appropriate direction(s)/order(s) to re-hear the matters de-novo for proper and just adjudication of the matters, with the bench comprising of a judicial member and;"
4. Similarly, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6770 of 2020 prayed for the following relief:
"(a) issue writ appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) and set aside the order dated 20.07.2020 passed in CC No 2009 of 2017 in "Manoj Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." and the connected matters adjudicated vide the common order and judgment; and
(b) As a consequence, pass appropriate direction(s)/order(s) to re-hear the matters de-novo for proper and just adjudication of the matters, with the bench comprising of a judicial member and;"
5. The petitioner was primarily aggrieved of the direction issued by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `learned NCDRC') directing refund of the amount deposited by the respondents/consumers/allottees of the project "Greenopolis" situated in Sector 89, Gurgaon being developed by the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 6%/9% per annum. Insofar as the Order in Consumer Case No. 2009 of 2017, titled Manoj Aggarwal & Anr. v. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which is challenged in W.P.(C) 6770 of 2020, is concerned, the direction of the learned NCDRC was to handover the physical possession of the flat complete in all respects to the allottee till 30.09.2020 failing which the petitioner shall refund the amount deposited by the allottee along with interest.
6. The petitioner self-summarises the grounds on which the writ petition was premised in paragraph 14 of Review Application, as under:
"14. The Applicant has filed the said Writ Petition against the impugned judgment on several grounds, namely:
(i) That a Technical Member has passed the order, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of a Judicial Member;
(ii) That the Ld. NCDRC had acted in contravention of the principle of comity of Tribunals as it ignored the specific and unambiguous request of the Ld. HRERA to not pass any order of refund as the same would put the entire project in jeopardy;
(iii) That the
Consumer complaints instituted under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 continue before the corresponding forums and are not affected by the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The right to appeal is a vested right which cannot be taken away, absent a statutory enactment to the effect.
The effect of the repeal of the 1986 Act on pending complaints and the applicability of Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 to preserve rights and legal proceedings.
(1) Proceedings instituted before commencement of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before Fora corresponding to those under Act of 1986 (National Commission, State Commiss....
Appeal – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of amount awarded will not be applicable to complaints filed prior to commencement of 2019 Act.
The court upheld that when an alternative efficacious remedy exists, it shall refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of statuto....
The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Redressal Commission is determined by the value of goods or services with respect to specific deficiencies claimed, not by the total transaction value.
Right to an appellate remedy becomes vested when the lis is initiated. The remedy which was available prior to the amendment would continue to be available despite the amendment. Therefore, it is for....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.