Case No.
CM(M) 2892/2024 (lead: CM(M) 2933/2024) & connected matters CM(M) 2955/2024, CM APPL. 40487/2024, CM(M) 2933/2024, CM APPL. 39598/2024, CM(M) 1818/202
Acts & Sections
Constitution §227
Constitution §136
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 §58(1)(a)(iii)
Also reported in
This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in
the following 5 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These were a batch of petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court, challenging orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) arising from proceedings initiated before State Commissions other than the Delhi State Commission. A common question arose in all the petitions as to whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain such petitions under Article 227, given that the situs of NCDRC is in Delhi, or whether the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action originally arose would be the appropriate forum.
The Court noted that the maintainability of a petition under Article 227 against an order of NCDRC was not in dispute, as settled by the Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023 (11) SCC 594), which held that NCDRC is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 and Article 136 of the Constitution, and that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable before the concerned High Court against orders of NCDRC. The core controversy was the identity of the 'concerned High Court'—whether it is exclusively the Delhi High Court by virtue of NCDRC's location in Delhi, or the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the original cause of action arose.
The Supreme Court's pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024) was noted as squarely covering the issue, following which several similarly situated petitioners had already withdrawn their petitions to approach the jurisdictional High Courts. The Delhi High Court undertook to examine whether, notwithstanding the said Supreme Court observations, it retained jurisdiction to entertain such petitions.
Catchwords:
Article 227 Constitution of India · jurisdiction of High Court · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NCDRC · supervisory jurisdiction · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · territorial jurisdiction · jurisdictional High Court · cause of action · State Commission · writ petition maintainability · Siddhartha S Mookerjee · Ibrat Faizan
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
