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 statutory appeals.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. Magnum International Trading Company Private Limited, a company engaged in business of real estate development, has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 13.11.2019 (hereafter `the impugned order'), passed by the learned Single, whereby the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the petition on the ground of existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.

2. The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging certain orders passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereafter `the NCDRC') in Consumer Case No.42 of 2018 captioned Vikas Dhawan & Anr. v. Magnum International Trading Company Private Limited. The appellant contends that the proceedings before the learned NCDRC are without jurisdiction, inter alia, on the ground that the subject matter is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned NCDRC.

3. On 27.05.2012, the appellant entered into an Apartment Buyer's Agreement (hereafter `the Agreement') with Mr. Vikas Dhawan (respondent no.1) and Mrs. Superna Dhawan (respondent no.2) for allotment of an apartment.

4. In terms of clause 12.1 of the Agreement, the construction of the apartment was expected to be completed within a period of thirty-six months. Respondent nos.1 and 2 claimed that the appellant failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period.

5. On 18.01.2018, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (being Consumer Case No.42/2018).

6. The appellant contested the said complaint, inter alia, on the ground that the learned NCDRC did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint because the value of the claim was less than Rs.1 crore.

7. The learned NCDRC passed an interim order dated 11.09.2018, directing the appellant to deliver possession of the flat in question to the complainants (respondents) subject to the disputed amount being deposited with the learned NCDRC, which would be kept in a fixed deposit receipt with the nationalised bank during the pendency of the complaint.

8. The appellant challenged the said order amongst others, by filing a writ petition before this Court [being W.P.(C) 11639/2018]. It was the petitioner's case that the learned NCDRC had passed orders without recording its objection regarding jurisdiction and without deciding the same. The said petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court (one of us - Vibhu Bakhru, J). The Court also rejected the contention that it was necessary for the learned NCDRC to first decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the claim. The Court further observed that it would be open for the learned NCDRC to decide the complaint finally, including the issue of jurisdiction and it was not open for the petitioner to insist that the complaint be decided in a piecemeal manner.

9. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2018, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court (LPA No.693/2018). The said appeal was dismissed by a consent order dated 28.01.2019, which reads as under:

"During the course of hearing, parties agree that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission may decide the issue of its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and thereafter, it may proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal and connected applications with the request to the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide the question of its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, preferably within a period of four weeks from today."

10. In compliance w