Parkwood Developers Private Limited v. Hardesh Mehta

Delhi High Court · 13 Sep 2024 · 2024:DHC:7121
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 3391/2024
2024:DHC:7121
civil petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court held that jurisdiction to challenge NCDRC orders lies with the High Court of the territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action arose and allowed withdrawal of petition with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 3391/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th September, 2024
CM(M) 3391/2024 & CM APPL. 53662/2024
PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Venket Rao
WITH
Mr. Pankaj Chandola, Advocates.
VERSUS
HARDESH MEHTA .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟) in Diary No. 38048/NCDRC/2023-FA.

2. The above matter was filed before NCDRC impugning order dated 17.05.2021 and 10.05.2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 07/2021.

3. Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana 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. CM(M) 3391/2024 3915-16/2024, learned counsel for petitioner prays that she may be permitted to 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 title M/S. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Birjendra Singh Mallik since Decessednthr LR in CM(M) No. 2933/2024 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 2024