Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR
K.Abbas Ali – Appellant
Versus
M.Meharaj Begum – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petition filed under article 227 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the contractual and complaint process (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding notice and natural justice (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. dispute on registration and consumer definitions (Para 6 , 8 , 19) |
| 5. jurisdiction issues and appeal vs. revision (Para 10 , 15) |
| 6. final decision on maintainability of revision (Para 17 , 18 , 21) |
ORDER :
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Diary No.20488/NCDRC/2025-RP, dated 19.08.2025.
2.Heard Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Balajivijayan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.A.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Brief facts of the case:-
3.The respondent and the petitioners have entered into an unregistered agreement, dated 27.09.2021 agreeing that the petitioners shall construct a building to the respondent and in turn, the respondent shall pay the expenses incurred towards such construction work. As the petitioners, after receiving the cost and expenses incurred towards construction, did not
An unregistered agreement does not invalidate a consumer complaint; service of notice is deemed valid under the applicable law, and the appropriate legal remedy is an appeal, not a revision.
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
No revision petition against the order passed in appeal filed under section 27-A of Act is maintainable before national commission.
The State Consumer Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-conveyance, conflicting with ongoing civil litigation and statutory limitations on review powers.
The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.
Limited Jurisdiction – Commission’s revisional Jurisdiction is limited. Since there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the deficiency of service by both lower courts, and no jurisdictional er....
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
