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 deciding an appeal or revision against an order of a State Commission other than the Delhi State Commission — can be challenged by a writ petition under Article 227 before the Delhi High Court, or whether the petitioner must approach the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the cause of action originally arose.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 11 SCC 594 had authoritatively held that NCDRC is a 'Tribunal' within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution and that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable before the concerned High Court against orders of NCDRC. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, decided on 04.03.2024) had addressed the precise question of which High Court would have jurisdiction, and many similarly situated petitioners had already withdrawn their petitions on the basis of that pronouncement to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
The central issue before the Delhi High Court was whether, despite the observations of the Supreme Court in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee, the Delhi High Court retains jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 227 against NCDRC orders arising from proceedings originating before State Commissions outside Delhi, merely because NCDRC is physically situated in Delhi. The Court proceeded to examine the competing contentions and assess the jurisdictional question in depth.
Catchwords:
Article 227 of the Constitution of India · jurisdiction of High Court · National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · NCDRC · territorial jurisdiction · Consumer Protection Act 2019 · writ petition maintainability · supervisory jurisdiction · State Commission · Tribunal · cause of action · Ibrat Faizan · Siddhartha S Mookerjee · L. Chandra Kumar · Associated Cement Companies
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.
