Appeal/Revision Against NCDRC Order Lies With Jurisdictional High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while considering an appeal or revision against the order of a State Commission other than the State Commission of Delhi, cannot be challenged before it as it lacks jurisdiction over such cases.It observed that the challenge to such an order lies with the 'jurisdictional High Court' or the 'concerned high court' where the cause of action arose in the first instance. The Delhi High Court would not have jurisdiction over the matter merely because NCDRC is situated in Delhi.For example, if the NCDRC decided on an appeal concerning the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the challenge to NCDRC's order would lie with the Karnataka High Court because this is where the cause of action arose. A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain stated that this issue is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024) and discussed the said case. In Siddhartha S Mookerjee, the cause of action arose in Kolkata. As the complaint was rejected by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata., the complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata, which allowed his application. In a revision petition, the NCDRC set-aside State Commission's order. After this, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. As the complainant had not approached the High Court, the Supreme Court granted him liberty to approach the 'jurisdictional High Court'. The complainant treated Delhi High Court as the 'jurisdictional High Court' due to NCDRC being situated in Delhi. The Delhi High Court issued notice in the case as a result of which respondents approached the Supreme Court claiming that Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The Division Bench of Supreme Court ruled that Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction over the case as the entire cause of action arose in Kolkata. The Court thus granted liberty to the complainant to approach Calcutta High Court. Here, discussing this case, the High Court remarked that “Thus, it is quite obvious that despite the fact that situs of NCDRC was in Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed and held that since cause of action had arisen in Kolkata, the jurisdictional High Court would be Calcutta High Court and mere fact that the petition had been allowed by the NCDRC would not bestow any jurisdiction to High Court of Delhi.”The petitioners in the present case however contended that Siddhartha S Mookerjee is not a binding precedent. They contended that this case is per incuriam in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors, 1997.The Court then proceeded to discuss L Chandra Kumar. The challenge in this case was insertion of Articles 323A and 323B of Indian Constitution, which excluded the jurisdiction of all Courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, in relation to service matters. Only the administrative tribunals were given power to adjudicate on concerned disputes. The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution and of Supreme Court under Article 32 was unconstitutional. It also held that the decision of the Tribunal on the constitutionality of subordinate legislation would be subject to scrutiny before A Division Bench High Court, within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls.Here, the Court observed that the issue in L Chandra Kumar was altogether different,“…it was never in contemplation before the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court as to which would be the jurisdictional Court, competent to entertain any such petition under Article 227.” The Court thus did not agree with the petitioners' contentions that Siddhartha S Mookerjee is not in line with L Chandra, as the assessment of 'jurisdictional High Court' for filing a petition was never done in the latter case. The petitioners also contended that cause of action consists of bundle of facts and that the orders passed by revisional or appellate authority would also give fresh cause of action. The Court however did not agree with this position. It observed that a cause of action is bundle of facts existing before the institution of a case. It stated that merely because orders were passed by a superior court, a fresh cause of action cannot be said to have arise. “Cause of action is bundle of facts existing at the stage of pre-institution of any case. After filing of case, merely because of the fact that the orders were passed, during the course of its legal journey, by a Superior Court or Authority should not be equated with accrual of any fresh cause of action.”Additionally, the Court referred to Section 53 of Consumer Protection ...

Appeal/Revision Against NCDRC Order Lies With Jurisdictional High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags