Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
THE GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
ROHIT MALHOTRA – Respondent
CM(M) 2955/2024|CM(M) 2933/2024|CM(M) 1818/2023|CM(M) 1824/2023|CM(M) 1858/2023|CM(M) 82/2024|CM(M) 2934/2024|CM(M) 2292/2024|CM(M) 2637/2024|CM(M) 2892/2024|CM(M) 3099/2024|CM(M) 2407/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Akshay Mann, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Sachin Mintri, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Mr. Dayaar Singla, Mr. Rohan A. Naik, Mr. Atharva Kotwal, Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, Mr. Ratneswar Das, Ms. Barnali Deka Das, Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha, Mr. Tauseef Ahmad, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Sachin Mintri, Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan
For the Respondents:Respondent-in-person, Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Mr. Prateek Goyal, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Mr. R.K. Joshi, Mr. Rajinder Gulati, Mr. Rajiv Bhasin
The jurisdiction to challenge NCDRC orders lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the NCDRC's location.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Jurisdiction of High Courts regarding orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - High Court held that jurisdictional High Court for challenging NCDRC orders is where the cause of action arose, not merely based on situs of NCDRC - Affirmed principle from Siddhartha S Mookerjee case that jurisdiction is based on original cause of action, leading to dismissal of petitions filed in Delhi High Court for lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 5, 73)
(B) Jurisprudential Principle - Jurisdictional High Court is identified based on the location of the cause of action rather than the located tribunal - High Court where original action is initiated has jurisdiction over appeals from NCDRC orders, emphasizing access to justice. (Paras 42, 73)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of jurisdiction for appeals against ncdrc orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contextual coverage of supreme court rulings on jurisdiction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. maintainability of article 227 petitions against ncdrc orders (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. connection between cause of action location and jurisdiction (Para 11 , 12 , 27) |
| 5. arguments on differing interpretations of article 227 (Para 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. hierarchy and jurisdictional authority in consumer disputes (Para 30 , 47 , 70) |
| 7. final ruling on jurisdiction of petitions (Para 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. A common question has arisen in all the abovesaid petitions and with the concurrence of all the concerned counsel, when these matters were heard on 01.08.2024, CM(M) 2933/2024 was agreed to be taken as a lead matter though the other counsel were also permitted to address arguments.
2. The question is whether an order passed by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “NCDRC”), while considering any appeal or revision impugning order passed by State Commission, other than the State Commission of Delhi, can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court or should any such petitioner go to the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action, in the first instance, had arisen. CM(M) 2933/2024 & 4 of 41 Other connected matters
3. Indubitably, the issue seems squarely covered in view of recent pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter in Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024 and following the above pronouncement, many other similarly situated petitioners had withdrawn their respective petitions with liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Courts.
4. However, few such petitioners contend otherwise and according to them, this Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions and it is in the above backdrop that this Court has heard arguments in the abovesaid bunch of petitions in order to assess whether despite specific observations given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), this Court can entertain any such petition or not.
5. There is no dispute that such order passed by NCDRC, against which there is no remedy to file appeal, can be permitted to be tested by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Reference in this regard be made to Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. : 2023 (11) SCC 594 .
5.1 In Ibrat Faizan (supra), a complaint was, initially, filed before Delhi State Consumer Redressal Forum.
5.2 Matter eventually reached NCDRC.
5.3 Order passed by NCDRC was initially challenged before learned Single Judge of this Court and the question posed to this CM(M) 2933/2024 & 5 of 41 Other connected matters Court was that whether such petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India was maintainable. Such question, answered in affirmative by learned Single Judge of this Court, was assailed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
5.4 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, relying on observations made by Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs. P.N. Sharma & Anr.: 1964 SCC online SC 62, came to conclusion that NCDRC could be regarded as a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and/or Article 136 of the Constitution of India .
5.5 It also referred to another Constitution Bench decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.: 1997 (3) SCC 261 and held that the High Court had not committed any error in entertaining writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by NCDRC in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 . It thus held that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable before the concerned High Court.
6. Thus, there is no qualm that against an order passed by NCDRC, a writ peti
