LexSURENDRA MOHAN ARORA versus HDFC BANK LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 5 S.C.R. 835 SURENDRA MOHAN ARORA v. HDFC BANK LTD. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4891 of 2014) APRIL 25, 2014 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 15 A B - Power of the National Commission to review order when C error apparent on the face of the record - Constitutionality of Regulation 15 - Held: The Regulations were framed in accordance with the power conferred on the Commission u/ s. 30A of the Act - Regulation 15(2) states that power to deal with review applications fies with the Commission - The D procedure is to be adopted by the National Commission, whether the review petition would be decided after hearing the parties orally or can be disposed of by way of circulation - Regulations uls.22 of the Act, cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act - No reason to believe that the National Commission E by enacting Regulation 15 exceeded its jurisdiction or the power vested in it under s. 30A of the Act - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. 22 and 30A. Review - Held: Unless the power of review is specifically F conferred by the statute, there cannot be any inherent power of review - Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Advocates Act, 1961. - s.30 - Proxy counsel - Entitlement of, to appear before the Courts - Held: Under the Advocates Act, there is no terminology which defines "proxy G counsel - Therefore, specific direction issued by the National Commission in its Cause List, that no proxy counsel shall be allowed to make submissions, not bad in law. 835 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A The instant appeal was file.d against 'the judgment B passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning the vires of Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 sets out the grounds for review and states that unless otherwise ordered by the National Commission, an application for review shall be disposed C of by circulation without oral arguments, as far as practicable between the same members who had delivered the order sought to be reviewed. The appellant contended that Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations be struck down on the D ground that the said Regulation was ultra vires Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that by introducing Regulation 15, the National Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and the power vested in if under Section 30A of the Act. E The main grievance of the appellant was that the National Commission has provided for disposal of review application by circulation without oral arguments; and that the salient features of the Act are being rendered F redundant by way of Regulation 15, by taking away the right of being heard and there is no adherence to principles of natural justice, thereby mal<ing it ultra vires to Section 22 of the said Act. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Under Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the National Commission has been empowered to review an order made by it when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Also sub- H section (1) of the said Act streamlines the functioning of SURENDRA MOHAN ARORA v. HDFC BANK LTD. 837 the Consumer Redressal Forums and also reduces the A number of appeals to the Supreme Court from the orders of the National Commission. The power of review did not exist earlier. lf is trite law that unless the power of review is specifically conferred by the statute, there cannot be any inherent power of review. [Para 9] [843-C-E] B. 1.2. In the instant case, the "power conferred by Section 22 of the said Act on the National Commission is not an inherent power and further the Commission has the power to review its order when there is an error C apparent on the face of the record. The Regulations have been framed in accordance with the power conferred under Section 30A on the Commission, thereby effecting its right to frame Regulations. Therefore, the Regulations have been framed in accordance with law. Regulation 15(2) states that power to deal with review applications D lies with the Commission. The procedure is to be adopted by the National Commission, whether the review petition would be decided after hearing the parties orally or can be disposed of by way of circulation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.