Delhi High Court
Mahindra And Mahindra Farm Division vs Sumit Kumar & Ors. on 12 September, 2024
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 02.09.2024
Judgment delivered on: 12.09.2024
+ 1) CM(M) 2955/2024 & CM APPL. 40487/2024
THE GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
AND ORS ......Petitioners
versus
ROHIT MALHOTRA .....Respondent
+ 2) CM(M) 2933/2024 & CM APPL. 39598/2024
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
BIRJENDRA SINGH MALLIK SINCE DECESSEDNTHR LR
.....Respondent
+ 3) CM(M) 1818/2023 & CM APPL. 57668/2023
M/S INDUS HOSPITALS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN ..Petitioner
versus
RAJEEV LOCHAN SINGH .....Respondent
+ 4) CM(M) 1824/2023 & CM APPL. 57684/2023
M/S INDUS HOSPITALS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN .Petitioner
versus
RAJEEV LOCHAN SINGH ....Respondent
+ 5) CM(M) 1858/2023 & CM APPL. 43980/2024
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FARM DIVISION .....Petitioner
versus
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 1 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
SUMIT KUMAR & ORS. ....Respondent
+ 6) CM(M) 82/2024 & CM APPL. 2212/2024
M/S INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.
...Petitioners
versus
MS. SHAIK MUMTAJ & ANR. .....Respondent
+ 7) CM(M) 2934/2024, CM APPL. 39608/2024 & CM APPL.
39609/2024
TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD &
ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
RAJ KUMAR .....Respondent
+ 8) CM(M) 2292/2024, CM APPL. 20314/2024 & CM APPL.
20315/2024
VARMAN AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL AVIATION, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR
.....Respondent
+ 9) CM(M) 2637/2024 & CM APPL. 30832/2024
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...Petitioner
versus
RAVINDER SINGH KANG .....Respond
+ 10) CM(M) 2892/2024
INDRANI BAISHYA & ORS. ....Petitioner
versus
CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 2 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
+ 11) CM(M) 3099/2024, CM APPL. 44171/2024 & CM APPL.
44172/2024
DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
.....Petitioner
versus
SOHAN SINGH & ANR. .....Respondent
+ 12) CM(M) 2407/2024, CM APPL. 24189/2024 & CM
APPL. 24191/2024
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. THROUGH ITS
MANAGER MAHINDRA AGRI SOLUTIONS LTD.
.....Petitioner
versus
PATEL SANGITABEN JAGDISHBHAI & ORS. .....Respondents
Memo of Appearance
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr.
Dinesh Sharma and Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay,
Advocates in CM(M) 2955/2024.
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate in CM(M) 2933/2024
& CM(M) 2934/2024
Mr. Akshay Mann, Advocate in CM(M) 1818/2023 &
CM(M) 1824/2023
Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anand
Shankar Jha and Mr. Sachin Mintri, Advocates in
CM(M) 1858/2023
Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Arpit Srivastava and Mr.
Sachin A., Advocates in CM(M) 82/2024
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate in CM(M) 2934/2024
Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Mr. Dayaar Singla, Mr. Rohan A.
Naik and Mr. Atharva Kotwal, Advocates in CM(M)
2292/2024
Mr. Shiv B. Chetry, Mr. Ratneswar Das and Ms. Barnali
Deka Das, Advocates in CM(M) 2892/2024
Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha & Mr. Tauseef Ahmad,
Advocates in CM(M) 3099/2024
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 3 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Sachin Mintri and Ms.
Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocates in CM(M) 2407/2024
For the Respondents: Respondent-in-person in CM(M) 1818/2023 & CM(M)
1824/2023
Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Mr.
Prateek Goyal and Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates in
CM(M) 2934/2024
Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate in CM(M) 2407/2024
Mr. Rajinder Gulati & Mr. Rajiv Bhasin, Advocates in
CM(M) 1858/2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. A common question has arisen in all the abovesaid petitions and
with the concurrence of all the concerned counsel, when these matters
were heard on 01.08.2024, CM(M) 2933/2024 was agreed to be taken as
a lead matter though the other counsel were also permitted to address
arguments.
2. The question is whether an order passed by Hon‟ble National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “NCDRC”), while
considering any appeal or revision impugning order passed by State
Commission, other than the State Commission of Delhi, can be
challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this
Court or should any such petitioner go to the jurisdictional High Court
where the cause of action, in the first instance, had arisen.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 4 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
3. Indubitably, the issue seems squarely covered in view of recent
pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter in Civil Appeal Nos.
3915-16/2024 and following the above pronouncement, many other
similarly situated petitioners had withdrawn their respective petitions
with liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Courts.
4. However, few such petitioners contend otherwise and according to
them, this Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions
and it is in the above backdrop that this Court has heard arguments in the
abovesaid bunch of petitions in order to assess whether despite specific
observations given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S
Mookerjee (supra), this Court can entertain any such petition or not.
5. There is no dispute that such order passed by NCDRC, against
which there is no remedy to file appeal, can be permitted to be tested by
filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference
in this regard be made to Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.:
2023 (11) SCC 594.
5.1 In Ibrat Faizan (supra), a complaint was, initially, filed
before Delhi State Consumer Redressal Forum.
5.2 Matter eventually reached NCDRC.
5.3 Order passed by NCDRC was initially challenged before
learned Single Judge of this Court and the question posed to thisCM(M) 2933/2024 & 5 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Court was that whether such petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India was maintainable. Such question, answered in
affirmative by learned Single Judge of this Court, was assailed
before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
5.4 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, relying on observations made by
Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Associated
Cement Companies Ltd. vs. P.N. Sharma & Anr.: 1964 SCC online
SC 62, came to conclusion that NCDRC could be regarded as a
Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and/or Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5.5 It also referred to another Constitution Bench decision of
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India &
Ors.: 1997 (3) SCC 261 and held that the High Court had not
committed any error in entertaining writ petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India against the order passed by NCDRC in
an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act,
2019. It thus held that a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India was maintainable before the concerned High
Court.
6. Thus, there is no qualm that against an order passed by NCDRC, a
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be
maintainable before the High Court.
7. The question is, however, which High Court?
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 6 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
8. Whether in view of the fact that situs of NCDRC is in Delhi, High
Court of Delhi or whether in view of Siddharth S Mookerjee (supra), the
jurisdictional High Court where the original cause of action had arisen.
9. The relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and of
Constitution of India are extracted as hereunder: –
58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.–
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission
shall have jurisdiction–
(a) to entertain–
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as
consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to
do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or
services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees;
(iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;
(iv) appeals against the orders of the Central Authority; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer
dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State
Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such
State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission
may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Bench may be constituted by
the President with one or more members as he may deem fit:
Provided that the senior-most member of the Bench shall preside over
the Bench.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 7 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the
points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there
is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the
point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the
President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the
case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other
members and such point or points shall be decided according to the
opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case,
including those who first heard it:
Provided that the President or the other member, as the case may be,
shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of
two months from the date of such reference.
67. Appeal against order of National Commission. —
Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission
in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of section 58, may prefer an appeal against such
order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date
of the order:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any
amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall be
entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has deposited fifty
per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.
Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have
power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions,
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 8 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or
writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by
any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within
those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any
proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without–
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in
support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an
application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such
order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall
dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on
which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such
application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court
is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is
not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period,
or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in
derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2)
of article 32.
Article 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High
Court.–
[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the
High Court may–
(a) call for returns from such courts;
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 9 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept
by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the
sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys,
advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under
clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of
any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous
approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court
powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
10. It will be now appropriate to take note of the aforesaid judgment
given in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra).
10.1 In said case, admittedly, cause of action had arisen in
Kolkata and the concerned complainant had filed complaint against
the opposite party before District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Kolkata.
10.2 Such complaint was rejected and, therefore, the complainant
filed appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
West Bengal at Kolkata, which was allowed.
10.3 Such order was challenged before NCDRC by filing a
revision and it was against the order passed by NCDRC that,
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 10 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
initially, a Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court.
10.4 However, in view of Universal Sompo General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain and Anr.: (2023) SCC OnLine SC
877, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court granted liberty to such petitioner to
approach the jurisdictional High Court.
10.5 Because of the fact that NCDRC was situated in Delhi,
petitioner treated the High Court of Delhi as jurisdictional High
Court and filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
10.6 Learned single Judge of this Court issued notice and feeling
aggrieved by issuance of such notice, the matter, again, reached
Supreme Court.
10.7 The question was whether High Court of Delhi could be
treated as jurisdictional High Court or not?
10.8 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court answered the same by holding
that the entire cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and merely
because NCDRC had allowed the revision petition would not be a
ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.
11. Paras 9 & 10 of said judgment in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee read as
under:-
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 11 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
” 9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent
No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action
in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was
operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired
on 30th July, 2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based
on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has
allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the
respondent no.2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the
High Court of Delhi.
10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before
the High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the
respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for
seeking appropriate relief…….”
12. 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.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 12 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
13. Despite the above specific observations, petitioners herein claim
that this Court does have the jurisdiction.
14. As already noticed above, the lead case is CM(M) 2933/2024 and
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel has made submissions on behalf
of petitioners in CM(M) 2933/2024 and CM(M) 2934/2024. Mr. Jayant
K. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner i.e. Mahindra and
Mahindra Farm Division has made submissions in CM(M) 1858/2023
and Mr. Harsh Kaushik, learned counsel for petitioner i.e. M/s India First
Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has argued in CM(M) 82/2024.
15. It is, now, time to take note of the contentions raised by them.
16. Prime contentions of Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel can be
summarized as under: –
(i) The petition in question has been filed under Article 227 and
a bare glimpse of the above provision would indicate that petition
is maintainable before the High Court which has superintendence
over any such Tribunal and since the Tribunal is situated within
the territory and jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has clear-cut
jurisdiction.
(ii) There is difference between appellate jurisdiction and
revisional jurisdiction and in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra), the
revisional jurisdiction exercised by the NCDRC was under
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 13 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
challenge whereas the petitioner in CM(M) 2934/2024 is
aggrieved by the appellate jurisdiction invoked before NCDRC
and, therefore, ratio applicable in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee
(supra) is not ipso facto applicable.
(iii) In context of CM(M) 2934/2024, the petitioner was never
aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission of Punjab.
Rather, it was the complainant who had challenged such order
passed by said State Commission and since the appeal filed by the
complainant was allowed by NCDRC, cause of action had arisen
only consequent to such order passed in favour of the other side.
Since „cause of action‟ arose by virtue of order passed by NCDRC,
this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
(iv) Cause of action comprises of bundle of facts and the orders
passed by revisional and appellate authority would also give fresh
cause of action.
(v) Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra) is not in synchronization
with the previous judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court of India in L Chandra (supra) and since the observations
given by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India have
binding effect, this Court is not bound by the observations given by
Hon‟ble Division Bench in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra).
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 14 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
17. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri has also referred to UOI & Ors. v. Adani
Exports Ltd. & Anr.: (2002) 1 SCC 567, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
UOI & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254, Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of
Central Excise: 2007) 6 SCC 769, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI &
Ors.: 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162, UOI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi & Ors.:
SLP (C) No. 530 of 2022 and Dr. Valsamma Chacko v. Leelamma Joseph
& Ors.: W.P. (C) 18689 of 2023, B.C. Chaturvedi v. UOI & Ors.: (1995)
6 SCC 749, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbhar Singh:
(Civil Appeal no. 6177of 2004), Rita Kesh v. Biswanath Singha: (2018)
SCC OnLine NCDRC 120, Lucina Land Development Ltd. v. UOI &
Ors.: (2022) 2 SCC 161, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Suresh Chand Jain and Anr.: (2023) SCC OnLine SC 877 and Rajeev
Chaturvedi v. Commissioner Jaipur Development Authority: (2024) SCC
OnLine Raj 365.
18. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has contended that
there is a fine distinction between Article 226 & Article 227 of the
Constitution of India as the former confers jurisdiction based on „cause of
action‟ whereas latter merely confines to the „situs‟ and, therefore, the
aspect of situs cannot be ignored, particularly in view of specific
observations made by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in
L. Chandra Kumar (supra). He has also relied upon Union of India v.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay: (2022) 3 SCC 133 and M/s Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co. Ltd.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 15 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
18.1 According to Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel,
jurisdictional High Court as referred in M/s Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) would be Delhi High Court only
and no other High Court.
18.2 Mr. Jayant K Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has also, in his
usual humble manner, submitted that Siddhartha S. Mookerjee
(supra) does not take note of Union of India v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and,
therefore, observations made therein would not bind this Court.
19. Mr. Harsh Kaushik, learned counsel has also supplemented Mr.
Jayant K. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. Kanika Agnihotri but
has given another dimension to the aspect related to jurisdiction by
coming up with a hybrid theory. According to him, though as per
Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra), situs might be irrelevant but that does
not mean that this Court cannot entertain any such petition. He has thus
tried to take a „middle path‟ while coming up with a harmonious
construction and submits that even if the jurisdictional High Court, in
context of cause of action may be some other High Court, the jurisdiction
would vest not only with such other High Court but with this Court also,
in view of situs and location of Tribunal.
20. Before taking up the contentions of the respondents and analyzing
the overall situation, it is also important to note that the decisions given
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 16 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Union of India v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (supra) have already been referred to a larger Bench by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi & Ors.
(supra).
21. According to the petitioners, mere reference of matter to a larger
Bench would not mean that the settled legal position should not be
followed and while referring to Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs.
Jammu Kashmir National Conference & Anr.: 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1140, it has been contended, and rightly so, that merely because any
leading judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is referred to a
larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto was pending would not
mean that the High Courts would not proceed to decide the matters on the
basis of the law as it stood and, therefore, it was not open, unless
specifically directed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, to await an outcome
of such reference or view.
22. Let us now also take note of the arguments of Mr. Avadh Bihari
Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent in CM(M) 2434/2024.
23. His contentions can be enumerated as under: –
(i) Mere fact that the order has been passed by NCDRC,
located in Delhi, would not vest any jurisdiction to this Court.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 17 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
(ii) Observations and directions contained in Siddhartha S.
Mookerjee (supra) are very categoric and explicit and leaves no
doubt of any nature whatsoever with respect to the fact that
jurisdiction would vest with that Court only, where the cause of
action had arisen.
(iii) Said observations are not per incuriam but very conscious
observations, in synchronization with the changing times.
(iv) Cause of action is based on bundle of facts and one cannot
be permitted to profess that jurisdiction would come into play as
and when one feels aggrieved by the orders passed by a Tribunal
or Court.
(v) The bundle of facts which need to be assessed would be
limited to those before filing of any petition and merely because,
thereafter, some judicial remedy was availed in terms of stipulated
judicial hierarchy and the order(s) were passed in revision or
appeal, such orders would not give any fresh lease of right or new
cause of action.
24. Reliance has been placed upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India: (2004) 6 SCC 254, Angika Development Society v. Union
of India & Ors.: W.P. (C) No. 11934 of 2023, Department Purchase
Central in Charge (DPC) Jute Corporation of India Vs. Tapan Kumar
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 18 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Barman & Ors. W.P. (C) 13628/2023 and Calcutta Gujarati Education
Society v. Provident Fund Commissioner (2020) 19 SCC 380.
25. It may also be noted that respondent Mr. Rajeev Lochan Singh
joined proceedings through video conferencing and stated that the
petition would be maintainable in Delhi. Mr. R K Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent in CM(M) No. 2407/2024 has, whereas, left it to the
discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders and has not made any
other submission, either way.
26. It is now time to take up the precedents which have been cited at
the Bar and which are germane to the issue of jurisdiction.
27. Let us first consider the pronouncement given in L. Chandra
Kumar (supra) which is a Seven Judge Bench judgment.
27.1 The issues, which fell for consideration by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in said case, need to be noted. These were culled out
in the opening paragraph as under: –
(1) Whether the power conferred upon Parliament or the State Legislatures,
as the case may be, by sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 323-A or by
sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article 323-B of the Constitution, to totally
exclude the jurisdiction of „all courts‟, except that of the Supreme Court
under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints referred to in
clause (1) of Article 323-A or with regard to all or any of the matters
specified in clause (2) of Article 323-B, runs counter to the power of judicial
review conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and on the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution?
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 19 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
(2) Whether the Tribunals, constituted either under Article 323-A or under
Article 323-B of the Constitution, possess the competence to test the
constitutional validity of a statutory provision/rule?
(3) Whether these Tribunals, as they are functioning at present, can be said
to be effective substitutes for the High Courts in discharging the power of
judicial review? If not, what are the changes required to make them
conform to their founding objectives?
27.2 The facts therein were very simple.
27.3 The matter related to Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby to secure speedy disposal of
service matters, revenue matters and certain other matters of special
importance in the context of the socio-economic development and
progress, it was considered expedient to provide for administrative
and other tribunals for dealing with such matters, while preserving
the jurisdiction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in regard to such
matters under Article 136 of the Constitution and while also making
certain modifications in the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Article 226.
27.4 Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India was inserted through
said amendment which comprised Article 323-A and Article 323-B.
27.5 Article 323-A related to Administrative Tribunals whereas
Article 323-B related to Tribunals for other matters.
27.6 Both the aforesaid Articles contained clauses, excluding the
jurisdiction of all Courts, except the jurisdiction of Supreme Court
under Article 136, with respect to the concerned disputes/matters.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 20 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
27.7 The question for consideration was whether the power for
judicial review conferred on the High Courts under Article 226/227
and upon the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution, could be taken away and while answering the
abovesaid questions, it was held that the power of judicial review
was a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and, therefore,
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226/227
and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 was part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
27.8 It was thus held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Article 226/227 and of Hon‟ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 was unconstitutional.
27.9 In context of the question whether these Tribunals could test
the vires or not and whether said aspect should only be permitted to
be tested by the High Courts, it was held that such Tribunals created
under Article 323-A and Article 323-B possessed the competence to
test the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions and rules.
It was observed that all such decisions of these Tribunals, testing
vires, would, however, be subject to the scrutiny before a Division
Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction such Tribunal
was situated.
27.10 It is, thus, very clear and evident from the ratio of the
abovesaid judgment that such exclusion of jurisdiction of the High
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 21 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Courts under Article 226/227 and of Supreme Court under Article
32 was held to be unconstitutional.
28. It will be worthwhile to extract relevant observations appearing in
paras 79, 90, 92 and 99 of L. Chandra (supra). These read as under: –
“79. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise
judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals
within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are divested
of all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional
interpretation, is equally to be avoided.
……………..
90. We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power of judicial
review of the High Courts. We have already held that in respect of the
power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles
226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. It has been contended before us that the
Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires
of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to
handling matters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot
bring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result in splitting up
proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such a view were to be
adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of
which may be quite frivolous, to directly approach the High Courts and thus
subvert the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special
branches of law, some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional
questions on a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a large
majority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the
Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no power to handle matters
involving constitutional issues would not serve the purpose for which they
were constituted. On the other hand, to hold that all such decisions will be
subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes.
While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the
High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that
frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in theCM(M) 2933/2024 & 22 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision
on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter.
……………
92. We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have
been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned
observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we
have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before
the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the
aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution.
……………
…………..
99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of
Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the
jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the
Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations
enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same
extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts
under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.
While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may
perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by
Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under
Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the
competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and
rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny
before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the
Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act
like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have
been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly
approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of
statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the
particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is
to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.”
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 23 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
29. The issues before the Constitution Bench have already been noted
and evidently, the aspect or issue as to which High Court was to be
moved for filing any petition under Article 227 was neither the subject
matter nor was argued by any of the parties.
30. The above legal position was reiterated in Union of India v. Alapan
Bandyopadhya (supra) and while approving the proposition laid down in
L. Chandra Kumar, it was held that any decision of Tribunal, including
the one passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, could be subjected to scrutiny only before High Court within whose
jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned was situated.
30.1 We may, now, note the broad facts of said case as well.
30.2 Said matter related to transfer of the Disciplinary
Proceedings against the former Chief Secretary of the State of West
Bengal, from Calcutta Bench to the Principal Bench, Delhi.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for exhibiting
conduct, unbecoming of a public servant.
30.3 However, Union of India sought transfer of the disciplinary
proceedings from Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench.
30.4 Such transfer of disciplinary proceedings was allowed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
30.5 The Respondent, feeling aggrieved, challenged such order of
Principal Bench, Delhi in Calcutta High Court.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 24 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
30.6 The Calcutta High Court set aside the above-said order of
transfer.
30.7 Applying the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar case,
Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, which passed the order
transferring the proceedings to Delhi, fell within the territorial
jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the order could
be judicially reviewed by the High Court within whose territorial
jurisdiction, the Bench passing the same was situated. Hence, the
order of Calcutta High Court was held as without jurisdiction.
30.8 Evidently, therein, the issue merely related to the transfer of
proceedings from one Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal to
other.
31. The petitioners have strongly relied upon said two judgments and it
has been contended that the “situs” has to be the sole governing factor.
32. This Court may highlight few things, right here.
33. Firstly, as already noted above, in L. Chandra Kumar, 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.
34. The issues were altogether different which were answered, very
categorically, while holding that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of theCM(M) 2933/2024 & 25 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
High Courts and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and
Article 32 of the Constitution was unconstitutional.
35. Undoubtedly, while answering above, Hon‟ble Supreme Court also
observed that the decision of these Tribunals would, however, be subject
to scrutiny before the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal
concerned falls.
36. The above specific observation i.e. within whose jurisdiction the
Tribunal concerned falls, seems to be the bedrock of the submissions of
the petitioners.
37. However, as noted above, the issues before the Constitution Bench
were primarily to the effect whether the exclusion of jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Articles 226/227 and of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution was permissible or unconstitutional
and the specific answer to such crunch issues comprise the ratio
decidendi, binding principle and binding precedent.
38. In Career Institute Educational Society vs Om Shree Thakurji
Educational Society: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 586, Hon‟ble Supreme Court
laid down that it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment
that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding
as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and,
for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it
the obiter dicta.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 26 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
39. The aspect of assessment of jurisdictional High Court for filing a
petition under Article 227, in context of said Act, was thus never in
contemplation in L. Chandra Kumar (supra).
40. It also needs to be emphasized that by virtue of said constitutional
amendment, various Administrative Tribunals were set up across the
country. As on date, there are 19 Benches and equal number of Circuit
Benches in the Central Administrative Tribunal, all over India. NCDRC
is, whereas, solitary National level Commission which not only has
original jurisdiction but also receives appeals and revisions against the
orders passed by State Commissions situated across the country.
41. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent social
legislation which lays down the rights of the consumers and provides for
promotion and protection of their rights.
42. Law is never static and on account of complex issues posed to
Constitutional Courts, every now and then, even the courts keep on
evolving and come up with new principles while attuning to the varying
needs and adapting to the changing times and trends.
43. There is a paradigm shift in approach while entertaining such
petitions which involves a Tribunal exercising control over multiple
States and Siddharth S Mookerjee (supra) is not the only instance.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 27 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
44. Reference be made to Ambica Industries (supra) and Calcutta
Gujrati Education Society (supra), judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court
only.
45. Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Ambica Industries (supra) was
entertaining question in context of a Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction
over multiple tribunals located in different states.
45.1 The appellant therein was carrying on business at Lucknow.
It was also assessed at said place.
45.2 The matter related to assessment ultimately reached Central
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi in
appeal.
45.3 The said Tribunal was exercising jurisdiction in respect of
cases arising within the territorial limits of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, National Capital Territory of Delhi and the State of
Maharashtra.
45.4 Having regard to the situs of the Tribunal, an appeal in terms
of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed before
Delhi High Court.
45.5 Delhi High Court, relying on earlier judgment in Bombay
Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2006) 194 ELT 264 (Del)] opined
that, merely on the basis of situs, it had no territorial jurisdiction in
the matter.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 28 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
45.6 Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the decisions
operating in the field, which had been taken note of in Kusum Ingots
& Alloys Ltd. [(2004) 6 SCC 254 would clearly go to show how the
„situs doctrine‟ had been given a go-by by making constitutional
amendments. It also observed that in Nasiruddin AIR 1976 SC 331
and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Court was
not dealing with a question of this nature and, therefore, the same
were not the authorities for the proposition that the High Court,
which is situated at the same place as the situs of the tribunal, alone
will have jurisdiction. It also noted that if the cause of action
doctrine was given effect to, invariably more than one High Court
might have jurisdiction, which was not contemplated. It also
observed that it was not oblivious of another line of authority where
the situs of the tribunal was held to be the basis for determination of
the jurisdiction of the High Court but supplemented that in those
decisions, however, the contentions which had been raised in the
instant case did not arise for consideration.
45.7 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Ambica Industries (supra),
observed as under in para 13 and 17.
13. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over all the
three States. In all the three States there are High Courts. In the event, the
aggrieved person is treated to be the dominus litis, as a result whereof, he
elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the
High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its
jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioningCM(M) 2933/2024 & 29 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does
not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High
Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or
tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall
come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at
Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take
advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he
would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at
Bombay.
……….
17. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in terms of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India as also Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court
would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of
certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the subordinate courts within its
territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen therewithin but the
same tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction
over a tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, in our
opinion, the High Court situated in the State where the first court is located
should be considered to be the appropriate Appellate Authority. The Code of
Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It provides for
jurisdiction of each court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction
only within the territorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable under the Code
of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of the District Court would be
exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the district, save and except
in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor.
(emphasis supplied)
46. Resultantly, the order of Delhi High Court, which declared that it
did not have jurisdiction merely because of the situs, was upheld.
47. The position is quite similar in context of NCDRC as well which
exercises jurisdiction across the country, encompassing all States.
48. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), question arose whether
passing of legislation by itself would give any rise to a cause of action to
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 30 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
file a Writ Petition and whether such petition could be filed where the
situs i.e. Parliament or State legislature was located. The appellant
company was registered in Mumbai and in relation to default in
repayment of loan, the bank issued notice under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
(SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The company challenged the validity of said Act
before Delhi High Court but the writ petition was dismissed on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction. Upholding such order, Hon‟ble Supreme
Court observed that a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a
parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi
only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi.
49. The next in line is Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v.
Provident Fund Commr (supra).
49.1 In said case, the initial order was passed by Competent
Authority, namely, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Calcutta.
49.2 The order passed by said Authority was challenged before
the Appellate Tribunal located in Delhi.
49.3 The said Society, while being aggrieved by the order passed
by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
approached Calcutta High Court.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 31 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
49.4 Since the order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal
situated at New Delhi, the Calcutta High Court declined to entertain
the writ petition, holding that it had no jurisdiction as the situs of the
Tribunal was at New Delhi, which was outside its territorial
jurisdiction.
49.5 The appellant Society, feeling aggrieved, filed appeal before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
49.6 In said case, as noted, though the original Competent
Authority was of Calcutta which had passed the order in first
instance, the writ petition was returned for want of jurisdiction as
situs of Tribunal was in Delhi. Such order of High Court of Calcutta
was, however, set aside while holding as under:-
“6. Insofar as that aspect of the matter as already noted in the instant case, the
original authority, namely, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Calcutta situated in West Bengal and the order dated 20-10-2005 was passed
by the authority under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act at
Calcutta. The appeal provided under Section 7-I of that Act would, however, lie
to the Tribunal situate at New Delhi. If that be the position, the original
authority is situate, within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. On the
aspect relating to the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition at the place
where the original authority is situate, the issue is no more res integra
inasmuch as this Court while considering the matter in Ambica
Industries v. CCE [Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] has
addressed such issue.
…………
………….
10. If the said enunciation of law is kept in view, as already taken note, in the
instant case the original order passed is by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner situate at Calcutta, West Bengal and the Calcutta High CourtCM(M) 2933/2024 & 32 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
can exercise territorial jurisdiction. In that light, we are of the view that the
Calcutta High Court was not justified in its decision to decline to entertain the
writ petition.”
50. Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) also follows the same line.
51. Evidently, the position cannot be equated when such Commission
exercises jurisdiction spread over multiple States. In any such situation,
the situs ought not to be the governing factor and one has to find out as to
where the original action was initiated and thus the jurisdiction should
also vest with concerned jurisdictional High Court only, irrespective of
the fact whether such Tribunal was situated, elsewhere.
52. This Court is also mindful of the benevolent objective which seems
achieved, albeit in the hindsight, by asking any such litigant to rather go
to the High Court in whose jurisdiction, the original action was filed. It
is, obviously, much convenient to the concerned litigant/consumer as
well.
53. In Union of India Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra), whereby, the
decisions in L Chandra Kumar and Alapan have been referred to a Larger
Bench, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court noted the submission made by Shri
Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate that under the constitutional
scheme, the remedies under Article 226 and Article 227 were extremely
valuable remedies available to citizens where they reside or carry on
business or were posted. The scheme did not require citizens to come
exclusively all the way to Delhi to seek redressal. Thus, limiting such
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 33 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
remedy would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the
spirit and principle of access to justice and contrary to the basic structure
of the Constitution which enables judicial review across the country and
not at one concentrated location.
54. In Ibrat Faizan (supra) also, it has been observed as under:-
“21. No so far as the remedy which may be available under Article 136 of the
Constitution is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the remedy by way of an
appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution may be too
expensive and as observed and held by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar [L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577]
, the said remedy can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective.
Therefore, when the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution before the
High Court concerned is provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of
the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, may be a complainant, to
approach the High Court concerned at a lower cost, rather than a special
leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
55. Therefore, applying the same analogy, by allowing petitions to be
filed only in Delhi High Court merely on the basis of situs, may also
jeopardize the right of access to justice, particularly when no cause of
action had even arisen in Delhi.
56. As per section 53 of Consumer Protection Act, the Central
Government may, by notification, establish Regional Benches of the
National Commission, at such places, as it deems fit. Naturally, if these
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 34 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
are established, any order passed by any such Regional Bench can only
be challenged before the jurisdictional High Court.
57. With the advent of technological advancement seen in modern era,
any existing Bench can also be designated as a Regional Bench which
can hear the matter through video-conferencing, even while stationed in
Delhi. In said situation also, mere situs may not properly answer the issue
of jurisdiction.
58. Sh. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent has
apprised that earlier, several „circuit Benches‟ were constituted by
NCDRC and sittings took place at different locations. In such a situation
as well, the petition cannot lie in Delhi merely because of the fact that the
main situs of NCDRC continues to be in Delhi.
59. Fact remains that in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), it has been
very categorically held that mere situs would not confer jurisdiction to
Delhi High Court and, therefore, the concerned party was directed to
approach the jurisdictional High Court.
60. This Court is unable to subscribe to the contention of the
petitioners that said judgment is not binding or is per incuriam.
61. This Court also notes that in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court made reference to Universal Sompo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 35 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
62. In Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), NCDRC
dismissed the first appeal filed before it by the petitioner and thereby
affirmed the order passed by State Commission, Delhi. Such order was
challenged by the petitioner by filing a Special Leave Petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The question was whether such
Special Leave Petition could be entertained without asking any such
petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court.
63. Hon‟ble Supreme Court extensively referred to Ibrat Faizan
(supra) and also noted L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Associated Cement
Companies Ltd. (supra) and came to the conclusion that the petitioner
should rather be asked to first go to the jurisdictional High Court.
64. Para 38 and para 42 of said judgment read as under:-
“38. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have reached to the
conclusion that we should not adjudicate this petition on merits. We
must ask the petitioner herein to first go before the jurisdictional High
Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of
the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the
jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of
course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is
always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before this
Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
42. In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court and challenge the
order passed by the NCDRC, in accordance with law.”
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 36 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
65. This Court must also lay emphasis that the words used in para 38
of the above judgment are “jurisdictional High Court” and not “Delhi
High Court”.
66. 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.
67. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for petitioner has strongly
relied upon Dr. Valsamma Chacko (supra) and has contended that in
virtually similar fact-scenario, the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam has dismissed writ petition filed under Article 227, holding
that since NCDRC fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High
Court, said court i.e. High Court of Kerala had no supervisory
jurisdiction.
68. It is important to mention that though the judgment in said case
was delivered by the High Court of Kerala on 31.07.2024, the concerned
parties did not draw the attention of the Court to the above said
pronouncement of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) and, therefore, this
Court, very humbly, is not persuaded by said pronouncement of High
Court of Kerala.
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 37 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
69. In view of foregoing discussion, it is quite apparent that as per the
ratio decidendi and the binding principle in L. Chandra Kumar (supra)
the exclusion of High Courts and Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the
purposes of filing petitions under Article 226/227 and Article 32
respectively was held as unconstitutional. As noted already, the issue
before the Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in said case
was never in relation to the situs i.e., to which High Court any such
petition under Article 227 could be filed.
70. The Authority in question i.e. NCDRC is a National Commission
which entertains appeals and revisions, emanating from the orders passed
by State Commissions situated across the country and keeping in mind
the aforesaid unique feature of said Commission, it cannot be permitted
to be contended that decision given in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra)
would not be a binding one.
71. Moreover, Ambica Industries (supra) and Calcutta Gujarati (supra)
also go on to hold that situs would not be a deciding factor where any
such Tribunal or Authority exercises control over multiple States.
72. The words “jurisdictional High Court” as used in Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) cannot be automatically inferred to be
Delhi High Court only. In Ibrat Faizan (supra), which related to a matter
pertaining to NCDRC only, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the
aggrieved party would be required to approach the „concerned High
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 38 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Court‟ having jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and
such phrases “concerned High Court” and “Jurisdictional High Court”
would not ipso facto mean “Delhi High Court”, more particularly, in
view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (Supra).
73. Resultantly, all the present petitions are disposed of while holding
that these petitions are not maintainable before this Court for want of
jurisdiction. Needless to say, the petitioners would, always, be at liberty
to pursue appropriate remedy by filing petitions before the respective
jurisdictional High Courts.
74. As per facts disclosed in these petitions, the following chart would
indicate as to where the cause of action had arisen in the first instance: –
S. No. CM(M) Parties Authority where action
was taken in first instance
1 2955/2024 The General Manager Punjab District Consumer
National Bank & Ors. Vs. Disputes Redressal
Rohit Malhotra Forum, Ferozepur,
Punjab
2 2933/2024 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. State Consumer Disputes
Vs. Birjendra Singh Mallik Redressal Commission,
Since Deceased Thr LR Haryana at Panchkula
3 1818/2023 M/s Indus Hospitals, Rep. By District Consumer
its Chairman Vs. Rajeev Disputes Redressal
Lochan Singh Forum-II at
Visakhapatnam.
4 1824/2023 M/s Indus Hospitals, Rep. By District Consumer
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 39 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
its Chairman Vs. Rajeev Disputes Redressal
Lochan Singh Forum-II at
Visakhapatnam
5 1858/2023 Mahindra and Mahindra Farm District Consumer
Division Vs. Sumit Kumar & Disputes Redressal
Ors. Forum, Sonepat, Haryana
6 82/2024 M/s India First Life Insurance District Consumer
Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Shaik Disputes Redressal
Mumtaj & Anr. Commission No. 1,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh
7 2934/2024 Taneja Developers and State Consumer Disputes
Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Redressal Commission,
Raj Kumar Punjab at Chandigarh
8 2292/2024 Varman Aviation Private State Consumer Disputes
Limited Vs. Directorate of Redressal Commission,
Civil Aviation, Government of Patna, Bihar
Bihar
9 2637/2024 The Oriental Insurance Co. State Consumer Disputes
Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Singh Kang Redressal Commission,
Punjab at Chandigarh
10 2892/2024 Indrani Baishya & Ors. Vs. Assam State Consumer
Chairman State Bank of India Disputes Redressal
& Ors. Commission, Guwahati
11 3099/2024 DHFL Pramerica Life State Consumer Disputes
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Redressal Commission,
Sohan Singh & Anr. Punjab at Chandigarh
12 2407/2024 Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Gujarat State Consumer
Through its Manager Disputes Redressal
Mahindra Agri Solutions Ltd. Commission at
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 40 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28
Vs. Patel Sangitaben Ahmedabad
Jagdishbhai & Ors.
75. This Court also makes it clear that the impugned orders passed by
NCDRC in the present bunch of petitions have not been gone into and
tested by this Court at all and the present petitions have been disposed of
only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
76. This Court acknowledges and appreciates the wonderful assistance
rendered by learned counsel for both the sides.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
September 12, 2024
st/dr/sw
CM(M) 2933/2024 & 41 of 41
Other connected matters
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.09.2024
16:21:28