Dr Brij Rani Pandey v. Electrotherm India Ltd and Anr

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 04.03.2024 and 02.05.2024 passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟) in Appeal No. 304/2020.

2. The above matter was filed before learned NCDRC impugning order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No.55/2016.

3. Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court, relying upon judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter, Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, learned counsel for petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to CM(M) 2684/2024 2 withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach said jurisdictional High Court.

4. This Court has gone through the above said order wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have been invoked.

5. Moreover, this Court has already vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed in General Manager, Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Rohit Malhotra: (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415 observed that in view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), any such petitioner should go to the “jurisdictional High Court”.

6. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion, whatsoever, over the merits of the case.

JUDGE NOVEMBER 6, 2024