Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr. G S Paniraj, Vs Dr. v S Rajamma — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Mr. G S Paniraj, Vs Dr. v S RajammaMr. G S Paniraj, v. Dr. v S Rajamma

Dismissed¶40

Mr. G S Paniraj, v. Dr. v S Rajamma

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026WP/3215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

G S Paniraj (ex-director, Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.) v. Dr. V S Rajamma and Anr.; High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 3215 of 2025 (GM-CON), decided 24.04.2026; Bench: D K Singh, J. (author) and T.M. Nadaf, J. Petition under Articles 226/227 against KSCDRC order dated 30.03.2016 in CC 312/2014 (refund Rs.60,000/- + 18% p.a. interest + Rs.25,000/- costs); arrest warrant issued 21.12.2024 in E.A.No.47/2017 execution; award unchallenged before National Commission, uncompiled and unexecuted ~10 years; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019 held to be complete codes — remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the State Commission, as the petitioner neither challenged it before the National Commission nor complied with it, and approached this Court only after the non-bailable/arrest warrant was issued in execution proceedings; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the available remedies under the Consumer Protection Act framework. +1 more

Court's answer

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are complete codes; unless all the available remedies are exhausted, a writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the State Commission, as the petitioner neither challenged it before the National Commission nor complied with it, and approached this Court only after the non-bailable/arrest warrant was issued in execution proceedings; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CON) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — challenge to the order dated 30.03.2016 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in Consumer Complaint No.312/2014, which had allowed respondent No.1's complaint in part, directing refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-. In execution (E.A.No.47/2017), the State Commission issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner (judgment debtor) on 21.12.2024, prompting this petition. Held: the award was never challenged before the National Commission, nor complied with or executed for about ten years, and the petitioner moved only after the warrant; the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being complete codes, a writ petition will not be entertained until all available remedies are exhausted. Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the award.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22531-DB WP No. 3215 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

MR. G S PANIRAJ, EX DIRECTOR, 71 YEARS M/S VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, 62, 7^TH MAIN, BETWEEN 8^TH AND 9^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. GEETHA MISRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

DR. V S RAJAMMA W/O C S BELAGAVI, R/A 300, 14TH MAIN, BDA HIG COLONY, RMV EXTENSION STAGE II, BANGALORE-560094

M/S VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, NO.151, 15TH CROSS, ADARSHA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003.

…RESPONDENTS

(R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22531-DB WP No. 3215 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD/ORDER PASSED BY KSCDRC IN CC 312/2024 AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 30.03.2016 AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE FORUM ON A COMPLAINT BARRED BY LIMITATION AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BASED ON FRAUDULENT, FORGED DOCUMENTS, THUS MAKING THE ORDER ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID IN THE EYES OF LAW, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

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

The present writ petition has been filed impugning

the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short 'the State Commission' ) in Consumer Complaint No.312/2014 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.

The State Commission, vide its order dated 30.03.2016, has allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22531-DB WP No. 3215 of 2025

HC-KAR

date of respective payment till the date of realisation. The State Commission has also directed payment of litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of the order.

The respondent No.1 initiated execution proceedings in E.A.No.47/2017. The State Commission, vide order dated 21.12.2024 passed in the execution application, has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner (judgment debtor) through the Commissioner of Police.

Despite the impugned order having been passed on

30.03.2016, it has not been challenged before the National Commission by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has complied with the order. The order dated 30.03.2016 has not been executed even after 10 years from the date of passing of the order. Only when the non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the State Commission in the execution application, he has approached this Court.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22531-DB WP No. 3215 of 2025

HC-KAR

Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Further, we observe that the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are complete code. Unless all the available remedies are exhausted, a writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court.

With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the writ petition.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the available remedies under the Consumer Protection Act framework.¶39
The court held
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are complete codes; unless all the available remedies are exhausted, a writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court.ratio¶39
2.
Whether this Court should interfere with the State Commission's award dated 30.03.2016, given that the award was neither challenged before the National Commission nor complied with or executed for approximately ten years, and relief was sought only after an arrest warrant issued in execution proceedings.¶34
The court held
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the State Commission, as the petitioner neither challenged it before the National Commission nor complied with it, and approached this Court only after the non-bailable/arrest warrant was issued in execution proceedings; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶37

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226; Article 227¶21
Consumer Protection Act, 1986Consumer Protection Act, 1986¶39
Consumer Protection Act, 2019Consumer Protection Act, 2019¶39

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.03.2016 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru ('the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.312/2014 filed by respondent No.1, allowing the complaint in part and directing refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. plus litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-; the order is described as an award/order of KSCDRC in CC 312/2024 at Annexure-G in the prayer clause.¶27
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru · 30.03.2016
Prior proceeding
State Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to refund Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realisation.¶28
Prior proceeding
Litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- directed to be paid within 45 days from communication of the order.¶31
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 initiated execution proceedings in E.A.No.47/2017; on 21.12.2024 the State Commission issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner (judgment debtor) through the Commissioner of Police, following which the petitioner approached this Court.¶32
Prior proceeding
The impugned order dated 30.03.2016 was never challenged before the National Commission, was not complied with, and remained unexecuted for about ten years.¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
MR. G S PANIRAJ¶10
Smt. Geetha Misra
respondent
DR. V S RAJAMMA¶15
respondent
M/S VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY¶16

Coram

AI extract

D K SINGHauthor¶25
T.M.NADAFmember¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 24 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 3 Feb 2025
Case no.: WP/3215/2025
CNR: KAHC010073152025
Topic: Consumer Protection
Bench: D K Singh T.m.nadaf
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-CON)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from D K Singh T.m.nadaf

Smt Lavanya Ganesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka
23 Apr 2026
The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka
23 Apr 2026
Sri Srinivasa Reddy v Vs the Tahashildhar
23 Apr 2026
The Vice Chancellor Vs Sri v Shankar
24 Apr 2026
Sri Bharath Kumar Naidu Vs Sri Lokesh C T
24 Apr 2026
Mrs. Lalitha Ramkumar Vs M/S. Himalaya Prime Assets Pvt. Ltd.
24 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Mr. G S Paniraj, v. Dr. v S Rajamma, WP/3215/2025 (KA), decided on 24 April 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226; Article 227
Consumer Protection Act, 1986Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Protection Act, 2019Consumer Protection Act, 2019

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order dated 30.03.2016 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru ('the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.312/2014 filed by respondent No.1, allowing the complaint in part and directing refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. plus litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-; the order is described as an award/order of KSCDRC in CC 312/2024 at Annexure-G in the prayer clause.Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru · 30.03.2016
State Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to refund Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realisation.
Litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- directed to be paid within 45 days from communication of the order.

View full history

Bench / Coram

D K SINGH and T.M.NADAF

Parties & counsel