LexIBRAT FAIZAN versus OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022) MAY 13, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Constitution of India: Art. 227 – Petition under – Maintainability of, against the order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in an appeal u/s. 58(1)(a)(iii) – Held: Is maintainable – National Commission can be said to be a ‘tribunal’ which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them – It satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and thus, regarded as a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 227 and/or 136 – Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers u/Art. 136, in view of the remedy available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court u/Art 227, as it is appropriate that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition u/Art. 227 – Also, remedy by way of special leave u/Art. 136 may be too expensive and can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective – Thus, the High Court did not commit any error in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 227 against the order passed by National Commission – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss. 58(1)(a)(iii), 67. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the appeal before the National Commission was against the order passed by the State Commission under Section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, against the order passed by the State Commission passed in a complaint in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act, an appeal to the National Commission was maintainable, as provided under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the 2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of [2022] 4 S.C.R. 632 632 A B C D E F G H 633 clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) or s. 58(1)(a) (iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction u/Art. 227. [Para 11][641-D-G] 1.2 The National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’ which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them. Therefore, it 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. Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article 136 , in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 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. [Para 12][642-H; 643-A-C] Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P. N. Sharma AIR 1965 SC 1595 : [1965] SCR 366 – followed. 1.3 The remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may be too expensive. 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 of India before the concerned High Court 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 concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED A B C D E F G H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.