Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member;
Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Member; Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member
M/S. KISHANGARH MARBLES (P.) LTD.––Appellant
versus
GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION––Respondent
Original Petition No. 21 of 1989—Decided on 23.8.1989
For the Appellant :Mr. Vineet Kothari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vithalbhai B. Patel, Mr. Devendrabhai Chauhan and Mr. R.P. Kapur, Advocates.
Concurrent rejection of a case by all courts precludes further investigation by a commission.
Headnote:
Relief - Concurrent Rejection by Courts - Investigation into Allegations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's case had been rejected by the High Court of Gujarat and the Supreme Court of India in a writ petition, and subsequently through a special leave petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief from the Commission as the case had been concurrently rejected by all the courts.
Issues: The issue was whether the Commission could investigate into the petitioner's allegations of deficiency in service by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation, despite the concurrent rejection of the case by the courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission held that it was not open to them to go behind the judgments of the courts and investigate the petitioner's allegations.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court did not consider it a fit case for awarding costs, especially considering that the petitioner's property had already been sold.
V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—Having heard counsel appearing on both sides, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief from this Commission in this case. The questions in issue have already been considered by the High Court of Gujarat in a writ petition filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by a Single Judge of that Court. Subsequently the judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court. A special leave petition filed by the petitioner was thereafter dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. Thus the petitioner’s case has been concurrently rejected by all the Courts. In the circumstances, it is not open to this Commission to go behind the said judgments and investigate into the allegation of the petitioner that there was a deficiency in the service on the part of Gujarat State Financial Corporation in its dealings with the petitioner which culminated in the sale of the petitioner’s industrial undertaking. This Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s property has already been sold away, we do not consider this a fit case for awarding costs.
Petition dismissed.
