CM(M) 1196/2021 Page 1 of 6

$~17(Appellate-2022 list)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1196/2021 & CM No.46693/2021, CM No. 8352/2022

OMAXE BUILDHOME PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. with

Mr.Karanjot Singh Mainee, Mr. Arjun Rekhi,

Advs. and Mr.B.Mund, AR of petititoner

versus

IBRAT FAIZAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. S.K. Pal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

%

31.03.2022

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

1.

This matter has been taken up on priority basis in view of the order

dated 21^st

“The jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is the

moot question for consideration. As the matter is pending before

the High Court and the next date of hearing is reported to be

29.03.2022, we request the High Court to decide the issue with

respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) first which

may be decided on or before 18.04.2022. The decision of the

High Court on the jurisdiction shall be placed before this Court

on or before the next date of hearing.

March, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C)

4281/2022. The said order reads thus:

Put up on 21.04.2022.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001204

CM(M) 1196/2021 Page 2 of 6

It is agreed by learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties that they shall not ask for any adjournment on any ground

whatsoever before the High Court.”

2.

As directed by the Supreme Court, I have heard learned Counsel

for the parties on the issue of maintainability of the present petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and proceed to pass orders

thereon.

3.

Mr. Pal, learned Counsel for the respondent, first invited my

attention to Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”,

hereinafter), which reads thus:

“67. Appeal against order of National Commission. – Any

person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission

in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of

clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58, may prefer an appeal

against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty

days from the date of the order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after

the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that

there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to

pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission

shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has

deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be

prescribed.”

4.

Clearly, Section 67 provides for appeals, to the Supreme Court,

only against orders passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission (“the learned NCDRC”) under Section 58(1)(a)(i)

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001204

CM(M) 1196/2021 Page 3 of 6

and (ii). Section 58(1)(a) of the Act read thus:

“58.

Jurisdiction of National Commission. –

(1)

Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the

National Commission shall have jurisdiction –

(a)

to entertain –

(i)

complaints where the value of the

goods or services paid as consideration

exceeds rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central Government

deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe

such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii)

complaints ag