Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 23344
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
UNION BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
CM(M) 2305/2024
ARUN KUMAR SHUKLA
The court allowed withdrawal of a petition under Article 227, emphasizing the need to approach the appropriate forum as per law when the cause of action arises in a different jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision petition - Dismissal of revision petition on ground of limitation by NCDRC - Petitioner seeks to withdraw petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum - Court grants permission to withdraw and dispose of the petition. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - Cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, appeal filed in New Delhi - Appropriate forum must be approached as per law. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, which was dismissed by the NCDRC on limitation grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum within six weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could withdraw the petition and approach the appropriate forum given the limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of approaching the correct forum as per law, especially when the cause of action arose in a different jurisdiction.
Result: Petition disposed of.
% 08.04.2024 CM APPL. 20668/2024 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stands disposed of.
CM(M) 2305/2024 & CM APPL. 20669/2024—21 days in re-filing & CM APPL. 20667/2024—stay
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (―NCDRC‖) in revision petition no. 42 of 2023 titled as ―Union Bank of India vs. Sh. Surendra Ram‖ whereby the learned NCDRC dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original complaint was filed before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh and against that order, appeal was moved before the learned NCDRC, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order.
5. After addressing some submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Uttar Pradesh except that the appeal before the learned NCDRC filed in New Delhi. Moreover, in view of paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee & Anr. Vs. Madhab Chand Mitter & Anr. [ C.A. Nos. 3915-3916/2024 ], learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move before the appropriate forum as per law, within a period of six weeks.
6. Permission to withdraw with liberty as per law and as prayed for is granted.
7. Accordingly, the petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
