Allowed

Dr. Anjali Raizada & Anr. v. Aliya Alias Ali Hussain & Ors.

Delhi HC14 May 2025CM(M)/1996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226(1) challenging an NCDRC order was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court relying on recent Supreme Court dicta regarding proper jurisdiction in consumer matters.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to invoke jurisdictional High Court; stay on coercive process for four weeks granted.

Dr. Anjali Raizada & Anr. Vs Aliya Alias Ali Hussain… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 14^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1996/2023 & CM APPL. 62822/2023 & CM APPL. 37370/2024

¶5

DR. ANJALI RAIZADA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agbihotri with Mr.Harshit Kiran, Mr. Himaghn Jain, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

ALIYA ALIAS ALI HUSSAIN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harsh Kumar with Mr. Hemang with Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan and Mr. Sidharth Tulsi Ganeshan, Advocates for respondent No.4.

¶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 21.09.2023 passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟) in Revision Petition No. 1882/2023.

¶12

The above matter was filed before learned NCDRC impugning order dated 11.02.2020 passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in First Appeal No.1661/2016.

¶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

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

CM(M) 1996/2023

¶16

¶17

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 12:07:52

¶18

withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶19

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.

¶20

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”.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23