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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more