Kdp Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Mr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Kdp Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Mr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court by filing an appropriate petition within six weeks; no opinion expressed on the merits of the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Article 227 petition challenging the NCDRC order should be entertained by the Delhi High Court, given that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of another High Court, and whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Court's answer

In view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (Supreme Court, 04.03.2024), any such petitioner should go to the jurisdictional High Court; jurisdiction does not vest with the Delhi High Court merely because the NCDRC, having its seat in Delhi, allowed the petition.

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The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court by filing an appropriate petition within six weeks.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion whatsoever over the merits of the case.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), decision dated 20.05.2025 — KDP Buildwel Pvt. Ltd.'s Article 227 petition CM(M) 3334/2024 challenged the order dated 21.09.2023 of the NCDRC in First Appeal No. 242/2020, which appeal had impugned the order dated 08.01.2019 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 325/2017. Since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of another High Court, the Court, acting on Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205 and its own order dated 12.09.2024 in General Manager, Punjab National Bank vs. Rohit Malhotra, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415, held that jurisdiction rests with the jurisdictional High Court and cannot vest with the Delhi High Court merely because the NCDRC sits in Delhi. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to file an appropriate petition before the jurisdictional High Court within six weeks; the Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits.

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 20^th May, 2025

- CM(M) 3334/2024 & CM APPL. 51505-51506/2024

KDP BUILDWEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

Through: Mr. Akul Krishnan, Advocate

versus

MR. DEEPAK KUMAR TOMAR .....Respondent Through: 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 21.09.2023 passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short ‘NCDRC’ ) in First Appeal No. 242/2020.

The above matter was filed before learned NCDRC impugning order dated 08.01.2019 passed by State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 325/2017.

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 Court.

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 3334/2024

1

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 16:56:04

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.

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”.

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

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

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

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

MAY 20, 2025/ dr/shs

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 3334/2024

2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 16:56:04