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
A batch of petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court raised a common question: whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while considering any appeal or revision against an order of a State Commission other than the Delhi State Commission, can be challenged under Article 227 before the Delhi High Court, or whether such a petition must be filed before the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action originally arose.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 11 SCC 594 had affirmed that NCDRC is a Tribunal within the meaning of Articles 227 and 136 of the Constitution of India, and that a writ petition under Article 227 against an NCDRC order is maintainable before the concerned High Court. The further question addressed was which High Court — the Delhi High Court by virtue of NCDRC's situs in Delhi, or the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose — has jurisdiction to entertain such petitions.
The Court examined the Supreme Court's pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024), which had already addressed the jurisdictional question. The Delhi High Court proceeded to consider whether, notwithstanding that precedent, it retained jurisdiction to entertain petitions arising out of proceedings before State Commissions situated outside Delhi.
Catchwords:
Article 227 Constitution of India · jurisdiction of High Court · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NCDRC · supervisory jurisdiction · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · State Commission · territorial jurisdiction · jurisdictional High Court · writ petition maintainability · tribunal · cause of action
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.
