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

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

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more