Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4431
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3915-3916 OF 2024 (@ PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 5665-5666 OF 2024) (@ DIARY NO. 48677/2023) SIDDHARTHA S MOOKERJEE & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS MADHAB CHAND MITTER & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
Jurisdiction of the High Court in cases where the cause of action arises in a different jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - High Court of Delhi - The court held that the High Court of Calcutta should be treated as the jurisdictional High Court in the case, as the entire cause of action had arisen in Kolkata. The appeals were allowed, and the petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi were disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed appeals against the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on petitions filed by the respondent no.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the common judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in two revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court of Calcutta should be treated as the jurisdictional High Court in the case, as the entire cause of action had arisen in Kolkata. The appeals were allowed, and the petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi were disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The entire cause of action had arisen in Kolkata, and therefore, the High Court of Calcutta should be treated as the jurisdictional High Court in the case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi were disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief.
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who appears on caveat.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 04th October, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi on petitions1 filed by the respondent no.1 herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common judgment and order dated 26th August, 2022, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2, New Delhi, in two revision petitions3; one filed by the appellants 1 CMM Nos. 1609/2023 & 1614/2023 2 For short the ‘NCDRC’ 3 R.P. No. 629/2020 (Filed by the appellants herein) & R.P. No. 645/2020 (Filed by respondent no.2 herein) Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.03.09 12:56:57 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified herein and the other filed by the respondent no.2 herein.
5. The grievance of the appellants is that the High Court of Delhi ought not to have entertained the petition filed by the respondent No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it cannot be treated as a jurisdictional High Court in the instant case as has been referred to in M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr4. He submits that the entire cause of action in the instant case has arisen in Kolkata. The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint5 against the appellants and the respondent no.2 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, (Unit-I) at Kolkata, which was rejected vide order dated 13th October, 2017. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 had filed an appeal6 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission7, West Bengal, at Kolkata, which was allowed vide order dated 13th February,
2020. Dissatisfied by the said order, the appellants herein and the respondent no.2-Hospital filed review petitions before the NCDRC, that were allowed.
6. Initially, the respondent no.1 had filed petitions for special leave to appeal8 before this Court challenging the order dated 26th August, 2022, passed by the SCDRC. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in Universal Sompo (supra) liberty was granted to him to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
4 2023 AIR 3699 5 Complaint Case No. CC/144/2016 First Appeal No. A/1313/2017 For short the ‘SCDRC’ SLP(Civil) Nos. 18709-18710 of 2022
7. Treating the High Court of Delhi as the jurisdictional High Court, the respondent no.1 has filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued on the said petitions on 04th October, 2023, on the adjudication of jurisdictional aspect. This is what has brought the appellants before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contends that the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.
9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30th July,
2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent no.2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.
10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief. In the event the respondent no.1 files a petition before the High Court of Calcutta within four weeks fro
