Case No.
CM(M) 82/2024 (Lead: CM(M) 2933/2024) & Connected Matters CM(M) 2955/2024, CM(M) 1818/2023, CM(M) 1824/2023, CM(M) 1858/2023, CM(M) 2934/2024, CM(M) 2
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 3 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These batch petitions raised a common question of law: whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while considering any appeal or revision impugning an order of a State Commission other than the Delhi State Commission, can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi, or whether the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action originally arose. The petitioners contended that since the situs of the NCDRC is in Delhi, the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain such petitions notwithstanding that the underlying cause of action arose in another State.
The Court examined the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, decided 04.03.2024), which had addressed the issue of the appropriate High Court for filing a petition under Article 227 against NCDRC orders arising from State Commissions outside Delhi. It also considered the earlier Supreme Court decision in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023 (11) SCC 594), which had affirmed the maintainability of a petition under Article 227 against NCDRC orders, in the context of a complaint originating before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Court noted that while there is no dispute that an order of the NCDRC is amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before a High Court, the precise question of which High Court possesses jurisdiction—Delhi (as the seat of NCDRC) or the jurisdictional High Court of the State where the cause of action arose—required careful analysis in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee, applicable constitutional principles, and the territorial jurisdiction provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Catchwords:
Article 227 Constitution of India · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · territorial jurisdiction · High Court jurisdiction · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · supervisory jurisdiction · NCDRC orders · jurisdictional High Court · cause of action · State Consumer Commission · writ petition maintainability · Tribunal jurisdiction
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.
