Skip to main content

Revision Petition Against Appeal In Enforcement Proceedings In Consumer Complaint Not Maintainable

In K A NAGAMANI vs NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, the question before the Supreme Court was whether a Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable against an order passed by the State Commission in an appeal preferred against an order of the District Forum with regard to enforcing the orders passed in respect of the consumer complaint. The petitioner contends that the proceedings to enforce an order passed in a consumer complaint is not an order in a consumer dispute and, therefore, a Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Act to challenge such order(s) would not lie before the NCDRC.

The background to the matter is that a claim for compensation demanded by the petitioner reached the Supreme Court and the order of the Supreme Court was transmitted to the District Forum for enforcement of the order. The only controversy arising before the District Forum was with regard to the calculation of the amount payable to the petitioner. The decision of the District Forum was objected to by the Respondent and the matter after going through District, State & National forum again reached the Supreme Court with the petitioner objecting that a Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of the State Commission passed in appeal
relating to enforcement of an order.

The Supreme Court agreeing with the petitioner held that as nature of enforcement proceedings is materially different from the proceedings for adjudication of the dispute. Any orders passed for enforcement of orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or NCRDC cannot be construed as orders passed in a consumer dispute‘ that stands finally adjudicated. There is no doubt that proceedings for enforcement of orders is also part of the proceedings initiated by a complainant. However, that does not mean that orders passed in the context of enforcement of the orders adjudicating the consumer dispute, are also orders in that consumer dispute. Therefore NCDRC would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition against the orders of the State Commission passed in appeal against the order of the District Forum.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more