Case No.
CM(M) 2407/2024, CM APPL. 24189/2024 & CM APPL. 24191/2024 (and connected matters CM(M) 2955/2024, CM(M) 2933/2024, CM(M) 1818/2023, CM(M) 1824/2023,
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 5 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
A batch of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was heard together on 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 before the Delhi High Court, or whether the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action originally arose.
The Court noted that the issue appeared to be covered by the Supreme Court's judgment dated 04.03.2024 in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024), following which many similarly situated petitioners had already withdrawn their petitions with liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Courts. However, some petitioners contended that the Delhi High Court retained jurisdiction by virtue of the situs of the NCDRC being in Delhi.
The Court examined the precedent in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023 (11) SCC 594), which affirmed that NCDRC is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable before the concerned High Court against orders of the NCDRC. The central question addressed was which High Court—Delhi or the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose—has the competence to entertain such petitions.
Catchwords:
Article 227 Constitution of India · NCDRC · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · jurisdiction of High Court · supervisory jurisdiction · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · territorial jurisdiction · cause of action · State Commission · writ petition maintainability
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.
