Skip to main content

NCDRC appellate order can be challenged before High Court

Citation : Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 3072 Of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : May 13, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Background

The Appellant/original complainant here had filed a consumer forum application against the Respondents before the State Consumer Forum. With the forum ordering in favour of the Appellant, the Respondents appealed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC by its final order confirmed the State forum order. The Respondents appealed against the NCDRC order before High Court, whence HC stayed the final order of NCDRC. In appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the HC, one of the primary objections raised by the Appellant was the issue jurisdiction of the HC  against the order of the NCDRC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court however opined that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has jurisdiction over order passed by the NCDRC in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Referring to judgments in Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-operative Society and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412, Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29), the Supreme Court said :-
  1. The National Commission satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and therefore may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary for Supreme Court to entertain appeals from NCDRC when remedy in the form of High Courts are present and as it is appropriate that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
  2. As per Section 58 and 67 of the 2019 act, the restriction on the jurisdiction of the High Court is related only to appeals against orders of NCDRC  under sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58. No such restriction is present against appeals against orders under any other clauses of the said section which includes appeals against orders of the State forum.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more