NEENA ANEJA & ANR. versus JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.

Citation: [2021] 15 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 16-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
[2021] 15 S.C.R. 96
96
NEENA ANEJA & ANR.
v.
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020)
MARCH 16, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.107 –Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 – Repeal of 1986 Act –Proceedings instituted thereunder,
if can be continued under the same forum– Enhancement of
pecuniary jurisdiction – Pending proceedings, if to be transferred
–Consumer case was instituted by appellants before the NCDRC on
18.06.20 under the provisions of the 1986 Act–2019 Act came into
force 20.07.20 – Case dismissed by NCDRC on the ground that
after the enforcement of the 2019 Act, its pecuniary jurisdiction
has been enhanced from rupees one crore to rupees ten crores and
the claim of appellants, of Rs. 2.19 crores is below its enhanced
pecuniary jurisdiction–Held: Proceedings instituted before the
commencement of the 2019 Act would continue before the fora
corresponding to those under the 1986 Act and not be transferred
in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established
under the 2019 Act– Something specific in terms of statutory
language either express words or words indicative of a necessary
intendment would have been required for mandating the transfer of
pending cases – Impugned order and the review order set aside –
National Commission to continue hearing the case instituted by the
appellants – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.6 – Interpretation of
Statutes – Harmonious construction.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.107 –Object and purpose
of the 2019 Act – Repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –
Proceedings pending thereunder, if to be transferred – Intention of
legislature – Held: The legislature cannot be attributed to be remiss
in not explicitly providing for transfer of pending cases according
to the new pecuniary limits set up for the fora established by the
new law, were that to be its intention–It would be difficult to attribute
to Parliament, whose purpose in enacting the Act of 2019 was to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
protect and support consumers with an intent that would lead to
financial hardship, uncertainty and expense in the conduct of
consumer litigation – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.6.
Interpretation of Statutes – Procedural Law – Change of forum
– Operation of, if retrospective – Held: A change in forum lies in
the realm of procedure – Amendments on matters of procedure are
retrospective, unless a contrary intention emerges from the statute –
Repeals or amendments that effect changes in forum would
ordinarily affect pending proceedings, unless a contrary intention
appears from the repealing or amending statute – Position of law
on change of forum, precedents analysed – Position of law clarified.
General Clauses Act – s.6 (c), (e) – Consumer Protection Act,
1986 – Held: Plain consequence of clause (c) and clause (e), when
read together is two-fold: first, the right which has accrued on the
date of the institution of the consumer complaint under the Act of
1986 is preserved; and second, the enforcement of the right through
the instrument of a legal proceeding or remedy will not be affected
by the repeal.
Words & Phrases – “entertain” – Consumer Protection Act,
2019 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Held: Mere use of the
word “entertain” in defining jurisdiction is not sufficient to
counteract the overwhelming legislative intention to ensure
consumer welfare and deliberately not provide for a provision for
transfer of pending proceedings in the Act of 2019 or u/s.106 of
the Act of 2019 which is a power to remove difficulties for a period
of two years after the commencement of the Act of 2019.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A change in forum lies in the realm of procedure.
Accordingly, in compliance with the tenets of statutory
interpretation applicable to procedural law, amendments on
matters of procedure are retrospective, unless a contrary
intention emerges from the statute. However, there was a
deviation by a two judge bench decision of this Court in Dhadi
Sahu, which overlooked the decision of a larger three judge bench
in New India Assurance and of a co-ordinate two judge bench in
Maria Cristina. The decision in Dhadi Sahu propounded a position
that “no litigant has any vested right in the matter of procedural
NEENA ANEJA & ANR. v. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
law but where the question is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.