Prabha v. Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2025CM(M)/1924/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; jurisdictional High Court; Delhi High Court jurisdiction not conferred merely by NCDRC seat in Delhi; withdrawal with liberty within four weeks; stay of coercive process in Execution Petition; Siddhartha S Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205; General Manager Punjab National Bank v. Rohit Malhotra (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415; NCDRC Revision Petition No. 2742/2011; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal First Appeal No. 246/2009; CM(M) 1924/2023; Manoj Jain; decision 16.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court by filing an appropriate petition within four weeks; no coercive process to be taken in the Execution Petition for four weeks. ¶¶19

Prabha Vs Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether, since the cause of action in the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of another High Court, the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw this Article 227 petition pending before the Delhi High Court and instead invoke the jurisdictional High Court.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Consistent with Siddhartha S Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter (Supreme Court, judgment dated 04.03.2024) and reiterating its own order of 12.09.2024 in General Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Rohit Malhotra, this Court held that jurisdiction does not vest in the Delhi High Court merely because the NCDRC has its seat in Delhi; any such petitioner should go to the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court by filing an appropriate petition within four weeks.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

For four weeks from the date of decision, no coercive process shall be taken in the Execution Petition, so as to enable the petitioner herein to seek appropriate relief from the jurisdictional High Court.ratio¶¶20
This Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion whatsoever over the merits of the case.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CM(M) 1924/2023 (Prabha v. Indore Development Authority and others): Article 227 petition challenging order dated 18.04.2023 of the NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 2742/2011 (which had itself impugned the 08.05.2011 order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in First Appeal No. 246/2009) disposed of as withdrawn. Relying on Siddhartha S Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205, and applying its own 12.09.2024 order in General Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Rohit Malhotra, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415, the Court held that jurisdiction vests in the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose and not in Delhi merely because the NCDRC has its seat there. Petitioner given four weeks to approach the jurisdictional High Court, with a corresponding four-week bar on coercive process in the Execution Petition. No opinion expressed on the merits. Single judge: Manoj Jain; decision date 16.05.2025.

¶1

$~20

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16^th May, 2025

¶3

- CM(M) 1924/2023

¶4

PRABHA

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Bhaskar, Advocate (through VC).

¶6

versus

¶7

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Anil K Sharma, Adv (through VC).

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 18.04.2023 passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟) in Revision Petition No. 2742/2011.

¶12

The above matter was filed before learned NCDRC impugning order dated 08.05.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in First Appeal No.246/2009.

¶13

Since the cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of other High Court, relying upon judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205, learned counsel for petitioner now prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High

¶14

CM(M) 1924/2023 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 16:49:37

¶16

Court.

¶17

This Court has gone through the above said order wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC, having seat in Delhi, had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have been invoked.

¶18

Moreover, this Court has already vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed in General Manager, Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Rohit Malhotra: (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415 observed that in view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), any such petitioner should go to the “jurisdictional High Court”.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court by filing appropriate petition within four weeks.

¶20

In view of the above, for a period of four weeks from today, let no coercive process be taken in the Execution Petition in order to enable the petitioner herein to seek appropriate relief from the Jurisdictional High Court.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶22

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion, whatsoever, over the merits of the case.

¶23

(MANOJ JAIN)

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

MAY 16, 2025 /sw

¶26

CM(M) 1924/2023 2

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 16:49:37

Prabha v. Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabha v. Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Maheshwari Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Shiv Construction Company and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Sharma Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Seema Rani Jain Vs M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls

Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jasmeet Singh Marwah

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited Vs Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Lata Yadav Vs Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vishal Maheshwari Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Shiv Construction Company and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Sharma Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Seema Rani Jain Vs M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Rajeev Sehgal Vs Ved Prakash

Kamlesh Dhingra through Lr Arun Khanna Vs Din Dayal and Ors.