Back
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
VEGE Realtors and Builders – Appellant
Versus
Hon'ble Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. Heard Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on admission.
2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short 'the State Commission') in C.C. No.17 of 2016, dated 11.10.2023.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although the impugned order is appealable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the petitioner seeks to avail the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution, because, in the previous round, in W.P. No.10900 of 2023, this Court directed the State Commission to decide the objection raised by the petitioners therein, as a first issue while deciding the consumer complaint. This Court declined interference and disposed of the said writ petition with the emphasis that the State Commission shall ensure that a reasoned order be passed on the first issue and only if required, proceed further to decide the other issues involved in the complaint.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for t
The court held that maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts, and a constitutional remedy under Article 227 can be pursued despite the availability of an alternative remedy under th....
(1) Against order passed by National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, writ petition before concerned High Court under Article 227 of Constitution....
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should only intervene in cases of clear jurisdictional errors.
The High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over orders from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission even when appeal rights under the Consumer Protection Act are li....
WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where effective alternative remedies exist, especially in consumer disputes; exceptions are limited and clearly defined.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authority of the NCDRC to consider the merits of the appeal.
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
