M/S Vishwakarma Engineering Works v. H Ravigowda

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026WP/18897/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition dismissed; challenge to NCDRC orders in Revision Petition No.1012/2025 and Review Petition No.59/2025; deficiency in service in supply of machinery; concurrent findings of fact not interfered with; jurisdictional objection that purchaser was not a consumer (commercial purpose) raised for first time before NCDRC; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; deposit remitted to District Consumer Redressal Commission, Mandya in Execution Petition No.08/2021; bench of D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K; order per D K Singh.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the District Commission and the State Commission suggest that the petitioner never raised the jurisdictional issue before either forum. ¶33

M/S Vishwakarma Engineering Works Vs H Ravigowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25568-DB WP No. 18897 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 18897 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S VISHWAKARMA ENGINEERING WORKS REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. RAJESH SHARMA AGED 32 YEARS OCCUPATION, BUSINESS R/O MIDC, PHASE-IV, PLOT NO.173, AKOLA TQ AND DIST. AKOLA (MAHARASHTRA STATE) EMAIL. [email protected]

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. VIMALA C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

H RAVIGOWDA PROP. OF NGR INDUSTRIES, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O PLOT NO.47-A TUBINAKERE INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ. AND DIST L MANDYA (KARNATAKA STATE) CONTACT NO.9986519873 [email protected]

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:25568-DB WP No. 18897 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE DIRECTION / ORDER AND FURTHER MAY PLEASE TO CALL THE RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.1012/2021 (ANNEXURE NO.M) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/05/2025 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.59/2025 AND 18/03/2025 PASSED BY IN REVISION PETITION NO.1012/2025 BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION (ANNEXURE NOS. P AND N), ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Review Petition No.59/2025 and the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Revision Petition No.1012/2025 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the NCDRC').

¶27

The District Commission as well as the State Commission have concurrently held that the petitioner has

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:25568-DB WP No. 18897 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

committed deficiency in service while supplying machinery to the respondent. The petitioner has raised the ground of jurisdiction for the first time before the NCDRC urging that the complainant/respondent did not qualify as a consumer as he purchased the machinery from the petitioner for commercial purposes.

¶32

The NCDRC has dealt with the orders passed by the District Commission as well as the State Commission quiet comprehensively and has dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with. Further, the orders passed by the District Commission and

¶33

the State Commission would suggest that the petitioner never raised the jurisdictional issue before the District Commission or the State Commission. We, therefore, find no error in the order passed by the NCDRC in Revision Petition as well as the Review Petition. As we find no merit in the petition, the writ petition is

¶34

dismissed .

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:25568-DB WP No. 18897 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38