SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.B.SHAH, K.S.GUPTA, R.C.JAIN
NCDRC BAR ASSOCIATION (REGD. ) – Appellant
Versus
DAVINDER MALHOTRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.B. Mudgil, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent

ORDER

1. Prima facie, it appears that the State Commission forgets that, in addition to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission for brief) is having supervisory jurisdiction over Consumer Fora in the country. This should be remembered by the State Commission before commenting that the orders passed by the National Commission are not binding to the Delhi State Commission. Hence, unless there is a contrary judgment by the Apex Court, the State Commission is bound to follow the decision rendered by the National Commission. Further, if there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgment.

2. Further, the State Commission must remember that constitution of Bench before the National Commission is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the President of the National Commission and the Benches are to be constituted on the basis of power conferred under Section 20 of the Act. The State Commission has no business to interfere and critici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top