Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The SC held that in case of an ex-parte order passed by the State Consumer Commission can be challenged to the National Commission.
In the present case of Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd vs State Bank India the Bombay HC observed that no appeal could be presented before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Act and hence no alternative remedy was available. Hence the appeal in front of the apex court was based on the fact that whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to set aside order from the State Commission by placing an ex parte.
Referring to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, the apex court observed “a plain reading of Section 21(a) (ii) read with Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) does not state that appeals cannot be entertained against orders that have been passed ex parte. The plain and simple meaning of the said provision is that appeals will be entertained by the National Commission against any order passed by the State Commission. The word “orders” as used in Section 21(a)(ii) means and includes “any orders”. Thus, an order of the State Commission placing a particular party ex parte can also be questioned before the National Commission.” Thus holding the statement, the apex court opined that in this particular matter, the HC could have dismissed the writ petition against the order issued by the State Commission as alternative measures of efficacious remedy were already available. “the presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law. However, entertaining a writ petition in such a case may be proper in certain circumstances, for instance when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, or has been passed invoking repealed provisions (see CIT v. Chhabil Dass Aggarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603).”
86540
103860
630
114
59824