Case No.
CM(M) 1818/2023 & CM APPL. 57668/2023 and connected matters CM(M) 2955/2024, CM(M) 2933/2024, CM(M) 1824/2023, CM(M) 1858/2023, CM(M) 82/2024, CM(M) 2
Bench
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
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 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court raised a common question of law: whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while considering an appeal or revision arising from a State Commission other than the Delhi State Commission can be challenged under Article 227 before the Delhi High Court, or whether such a challenge must be filed before the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action originally arose.
The Court noted that it is well-settled, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 11 SCC 594, that an order of the NCDRC is amenable to a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the appropriate High Court, since the NCDRC qualifies as a 'Tribunal' within the meaning of Articles 227 and 136 of the Constitution. The controversy, however, pertained to which High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain such petitions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 in Siddhartha S Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024).
The Court examined the Supreme Court's observations in Siddhartha S Mookerjee and considered the competing contentions of the petitioners, some of whom argued that since the situs of the NCDRC is in Delhi, the Delhi High Court retains jurisdiction, while others had already withdrawn similar petitions with liberty to approach their respective jurisdictional High Courts. The judgment proceeded to analyse these jurisdictional questions and lay down the applicable principles for determining the correct forum for challenging NCDRC orders under Article 227.
Catchwords:
Article 227 Constitution of India · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · territorial jurisdiction · High Court · jurisdictional High Court · consumer disputes · NCDRC orders · writ petition maintainability · State Commission · cause of action · Tribunal · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · supervisory 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.
