Dismissed

Induslnd Media & Communication Ltd. &Anr. v. Society of Catalysts & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Nov 2019W.P.(C)/8780/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed three writ petitions challenging an order of the State Commission, holding that the petitioners were not bereft of efficacious alternate remedies. The petitioners were directed to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; petitioners directed to approach NCDRC; interim order extended for two weeks.

Induslnd Media & Communication Ltd. &Anr. Vs Society of Catalysts & Ors. — Delhi HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~44 to 46

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Decided on 05.11.2019

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & CM APPL. 16548/2007

¶5

ZEE TURNER LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tejveer Bhatia with Mr. Rohan Swarup, Advocates. versus

¶6

SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates. Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no. 8.

¶7

+ W.P.(C) 8780/2007 & CM APPL. 16551/2007

¶8

INDUSLND MEDIA & COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tejveer Bhatia with Mr. Rohan Swarup, Advocates. versus SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates. Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

¶9

+ W.P.(C) 8836/2007 & CM APPL. 16651/2007

¶10

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD. & ANR..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Priya Puri with Ms. Yati Sharma and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocates.

¶11

W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters

¶12

Pg.1 of 3

¶13

versus SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates.

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶15

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶16

In the captioned matters challenge is laid by each of the writ petitioners to the common order dated 19.11.20017 passed by the State Commission (Delhi).

¶17

It is not in dispute that a statutory remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘CPA’) is available to the petitioners against the impugned order of the State Commission. The remedy lies with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

¶18

Mr. Salwan, who, appears on behalf of the respondents has in fact, placed before me an order dated 31.10.2019, passed in W.P. (C) 4777/2018, titled: Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. Vs Soceity of Catalysts to buttress his submission that the petitioners should be relegated to the remedy available under the CPA.

¶19

3.1 Mr. Salwan informs me that in the Vodafone case a similar issue arose whereupon the petitioners withdrew their petition with liberty to prefer an appeal with the NCDRC.

¶20

3.2 This Court, as in evident on perusal of the order dated 31.10.2019, directed the NCDRC to decide the matter on merits uninfluenced by the delay on preferring the appeal.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the

¶22

W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters

¶23

Pg.2 of 3

¶24

fact that a statutory remedy both by way of an appeal as well as by a revision is available to the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the issues raised in the captioned matters can be adjudicated by the NCDRC. As is apparent, the petitioners are not bereft of an efficacious alternate remedy.

¶25

The captioned writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction that the writ petitioners should approach the NCDRC for ventilation of their grievance.

¶26

Needless to add, in computing the delay, the NCDRC will take into account the fact that petitioners were bonafidely prosecuting the captioned writ petitions before this Court.

¶27

Since there is an interim order dated 28.11.2007 operating in favour of the petitioners, the same will continue to operate for a further two weeks commencing from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to enable the petitioners to approach the NCDRC.

¶28

In case, the petitioners do not take recourse to a statutory remedy as indicated above within a period of four weeks from today, the interim protection granted by this Court will dissolve automatically.

¶29

Resultantly, the pending applications shall stand closed.

¶30

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 05, 2019/ c

¶32

W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters

¶33

Pg.3 of 3

Induslnd Media & Communication Ltd. &Anr. v. Society of Catalysts & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Induslnd Media & Communication Ltd. &Anr. v. Society of Catalysts & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Wadhwa Vs Union of India and Anr.

Yogesh Khantwal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aarti Khantwal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mukut Pathak and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri Sarwan Kumar and Ors. Vs Government of NCT and Anr.

Cynorlmpex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Maple Logistics Private Limited & Anr. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Tds Ward 75 (1) & Anr.

Shyam Sundar Batra Vs Punjab & Sind Bank through Chairman & Managing Director & Ors.

Prateek Solanki Vs Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies and Anr.

Naincy Sagar Vs Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies and Anr.

S.S Education Trust and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms. Sanchi Dilavari Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Zee Turner Ltd. & Anr. Vs Society of Catalysts & Ors.

Hathway Cable & Datacom P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Society of Catalysts & Ors.