Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Narinder Garg — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Narinder Garg — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution with the NCDRC's order dated 30.10.2023 (which upheld the State Commission's dismissal of the petitioner-Bank's appeal for non-appearance/non-prosecution), the sole pleaded ground being that the non-appearance resulted from wrong noting of the adjournment date.

Court's answer

The plea that the appellant-Bank's non-appearance was caused by wrong noting of the date is not plausible: when the Bank appeared on 14.05.2018 the matter was adjourned for 19.11.2018, and the contention that oversight/communication gap led to the date being recorded as 19.11.2019 does not generate any confidence.

Ratio / Principle

Since nobody appeared for the appellant-Bank on the dates following its last recorded appearance of 14.05.2018, the learned State Commission was compelled to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

The impugned order is based on factual aspects and no interference, by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is warranted.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.), 14.07.2025 — CM(M) 1914/2024, HDFC BANK LTD v. NARINDER GARG: Petition under Article 227 dismissed. The respondent's 2007 complaint over a credit-card demand was allowed on 04.09.2013; the Bank's appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission was dismissed on 01.11.2019 for non-appearance/non-prosecution (last recorded appearance 14.05.2018; absent on 19.11.2018, 24.05.2019 and 01.11.2019); its revision petition was dismissed by the NCDRC on 30.10.2023. Rejecting the Bank's sole ground that the non-appearance arose from wrong noting of the date (matter adjourned on 14.05.2018 to 19.11.2018, not 19.11.2019) as generating no confidence, and holding the impugned order to rest on factual aspects, the Court declined supervisory interference under Article 227. Stay application disposed of; hearing date 11.09.2025 cancelled.

$~68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 14^th July, 2025

- CM(M) 1914/2024 HDFC BANK LTD

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anupam Singh and Mr. Ajeyo Sharma, Advocates.

versus

NARINDER GARG

.....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

CM(M) 1914/2024 & CM APPL. 40833/2025 (stay)

Petitioner seeks stay of the execution petition which is coming up for further consideration before the learned District Forum on 16.09.2025.

Learned counsel for petitioner, however, submits that he is ready with arguments with the main petition and, accordingly, in order to appreciate the contentions made in the stay application, the main petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been taken up.

The point raised in the present petition is very short and there is no legal issue, as such, which is found involved.

A complaint was filed by respondent- Mr. Narinder Garg, with respect to demand raised by the petitioner-Bank in relation to one credit card issued by them.

Such complaint was filed way back in the year 2007 and vide judgment

CM(M) 1914/2024 1

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:15:48

dated 04.09.2013, such complaint was allowed.

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by petitioner-Bank before the learned Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission (in short „State Commission‟).

Fact, however, remains that there was no appearance from the side of appellant-Bank before the learned State Commission and, resultantly, such appeal was dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution on 01.11.2019.

The petitioner-Bank challenged the abovesaid order by filing a revision petition and such revision petition has been dismissed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “NCDRC”) on 30.10.2023.

Such order dated 30.10.2023 is under challenge.

Learned NCDRC noted that learned State Commission was fully justified in dismissing the appeal for non appearance and for non-prosecution considering the fact that there was no appearance from the side of appellant-Bank for three consecutive dates.

Admittedly, the last recorded appearance from the side of the appellant-Bank before the learned State Commission is of 14.05.2018 and, thereafter, nobody appeared from their side on the next three dates i.e. 19.11.2018, 24.05.2019 and 01.11.2019.

Resultantly, the learned State Commission was compelled to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution .

The sole ground taken by the petitioner-Bank is to the effect that their non-appearance was on account of wrong noting of date.

However, such argument does not seem to be plausible as when the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:15:48

CM(M) 1914/2024 2

appellant-Bank had appeared before the learned State Commission on 14.05.2018, the matter was adjourned for 19.11.2018 and the contention that due to some over sight and communication gap, the date was recorded as 19.11.2019, does not generate any confidence.

Be that as it may, the impugned order is based on the factual aspects and no interference, by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seems warranted.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed

The stay application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

The next date i.e. 11.09.2025 is cancelled.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

JULY 14, 2025/ss/pb

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1914/2024 3

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:15:48