Dismissed¶18

Ms M3M India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karan Aggarwal

Delhi HC13 Feb 2025CM(M)/304/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC; CM(M) 304/2025; Article 227 petition; NCDRC First Appeal No. 727/2023; order dated 09.12.2024 allowing written statement/reply on record subject to Rs. 60,000/- cost; condonation of delay dismissed 10.04.2023; complaint filed March 2022 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; petition dismissed as withdrawn; request that NCDRC cost order not be treated as precedent; judicial authorities decide cases on peculiar facts; Ravinder Dudeja, J.; 13.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with no substantive relief — the impugned NCDRC order dated 09.12.2024 stands unchallenged. Exemption application (CM APPL. 8816/2025) allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶18

Ms M3M India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karan Aggarwal — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Sustainability of the petitioner's Article 227 challenge to the NCDRC order dated 09.12.2024 in First Appeal No. 727/2023, which allowed the respondent's written statement/reply to be taken on record subject to payment of Rs. 60,000/- as cost. (Framed by the petition but not adjudicated; petition withdrawn.)

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The exemption application (CM APPL. 8816/2025) is allowed subject to all just exceptions and stands disposed of.

¶11

Key takeaways

The counsel's statement (that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the petition and seeks permission to withdraw) is taken on record, and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn; no issue adjudicated on merits.ratio¶18
Passing observation in response to counsel's request that the NCDRC cost-imposing order not be treated as a precedent: judicial authorities decide cases on their peculiar facts and circumstances; no formal precedent-immunity is conferred on the NCDRC order.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Ravinder Dudeja, J.), order dated 13.02.2025 in CM(M) 304/2025 with CM APPL. 8817/2025 (stay): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by MS M3M India Pvt Ltd challenging the NCDRC order dated 09.12.2024 in First Appeal No. 727/2023, whereby the appeal of respondent Karan Aggarwal was allowed and his written statement/reply (filed October 2022 with a condonation-of-delay application; condonation dismissed by NCDRC on 10.04.2023) was taken on record subject to payment of Rs. 60,000/- as cost. The exemption application (CM APPL. 8816/2025) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. After part submissions, counsel stated the petitioner did not wish to pursue the petition and sought leave to withdraw, requesting that the NCDRC cost-imposing order not be treated as a precedent. The statement was taken on record and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn; the Judge observed that judicial authorities decide cases on their peculiar facts and circumstances. No issue was adjudicated on merits and the impugned NCDRC order stands unaffected.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 304/2025

¶4

MS M3M INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Mr. Raymon Singh and Ms. Molly Sharma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

KARAN AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through:

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 13.02.2025 CM APPL. 8816/2025(exemption)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 304/2025& CM APPL. 8817/2025 STAY

¶14

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [ NCDRC ] in First Appeal bearing no. 727/2023.

¶15

In March 2022, the respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The written statement was filed in October 2022 along with an application for condonation of delay. NCDRC dismissed the application on 10.04.2023 and refused to take the written statement/reply on record.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:37

¶17

First appeal filed before the NCDRC has been allowed, and written statement/reply has been allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of Rs.60,000/- as cost.

¶18

After part submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not want to pursue the present petition and seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. However, he has made a request that the order imposing the cost by the NCDRC may not be treated as a precedent. 5. The statement made by the learned counsel is taken on record, and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Suffice to state that judicial authorities decide cases on their peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶19

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 13, 2025/ib/n

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:37

Ms M3M India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karan Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms M3M India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karan Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanja Y Khanna Vs Sh. Bharamtod Singh

Sh Parveen Kumar Rastogi & Ors. Vs Sh Radhey Shyam Rastogi & Ors.

Fiitjee Ltd. Vs Madhulika Singh

Vijay Vasudeva & Ors. Vs Control Risks India Private Limited

Pawan Kumar Vs Prakarti Rawat

Tara Chand Sumit Const Co. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sh Mahender and Anr. Vs Krishna Devi & Ors.

Urmila Gupta Vs Punam Harit & Ors.

Sanja Y Khanna Vs Sh. Bharamtod Singh

Sh Parveen Kumar Rastogi & Ors. Vs Sh Radhey Shyam Rastogi & Ors.

Fiitjee Ltd. Vs Madhulika Singh

Siddhant Kumar Vs Mayank Malik

Braj Mohan Goel & Anr. Vs Union of India

M/S L.D. Rangwala Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Rana Polycot Limited & Anr. & Ors.