Arihant Superstructures Limited Vs Pushpa Agarwal — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Arihant Superstructures Limited Vs Pushpa Agarwal — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; rights and contentions of the parties reserved; petitioner permitted to file an appropriate petition before the Rajasthan High Court; no coercive process in the Execution Petition for four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Article 227 challenging the NCDRC order is maintainable before the Delhi High Court, given that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court.

Court's answer

Since the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court, the petitioner should approach the concerned jurisdictional High Court, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of as not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction, with all rights and contentions of the parties reserved.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court, i.e. the Rajasthan High Court, by filing an appropriate petition.ratio¶20
For a period of four weeks, no coercive process is to be taken in the Execution Petition, to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the jurisdictional High Court.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jurisdiction — Article 227 petition before Delhi High Court against NCDRC order — not maintainable where entire cause of action arose outside Delhi. An Article 227 petition by Arihant Superstructures Limited challenging the NCDRC order dated 09.05.2022 in First Appeal No. 997/2021 (which had dismissed its appeal against the Rajasthan State Commission's order dated 13.09.2021 in Consumer Complaint No.09/2017) was disposed of as not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction. Relying on Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Supreme Court, 04.03.2024) and its own earlier order in General Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Rohit Malhotra, the Court held that since the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court, the petitioner must seek relief there; all rights and contentions were reserved, and no coercive process was to be taken in the pending Execution Petition for four weeks.

$~5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 19^th March, 2025

- CM(M) 2477/2024 & CM APPL. 34267/2022

ARIHANT SUPERSTRUCTURES LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Arpit Gupta & Mr. Divya Pratap Parmar, Advocates.

versus

PUSHPA AGARWAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate. CORAM:

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

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 09.05.2022 passed in First Appeal No. 997/2021 by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟).

By virtue of the abovesaid order, the appeal filed by petitioner herein i.e. Arihant Superstructures Limited has been dismissed.

The above matter was filed before NCDRC impugning order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in Consumer Complaint No.09/2017.

Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court, in view of judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205, the petitioner should rather approach the concerned jurisdictional High Court.

CM(M) 2477/2024 1

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.03.2025 17:38:12

In Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC 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.

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”.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction. All the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court by filing appropriate petition.

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. 10. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

MARCH 19, 2025//st/SS

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 2477/2024 2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.03.2025 17:38:12