[1] Om Prakash Saini v DCM Limite d is a case which arose under the Consumer Protection Act. A retired Railway employee invested amount in fully secured redeemable non-convertible debentures. When they were due for payment on 14.08.1998, he was informed that due to financial difficulties, DCM would not pay the amount as scheduled. A revised payment scheme was informed but amounts were not paid. A complaint was moved before the Delhi State Commission. The State Commission directed DCM to pay maturity amount. This was challenged in appeal before the National Commission. But, after withdrawing it, DCM approached the High Court under Article 227, which allowed i t ex parte. The application to recall the order was dismissed. Saini challenged before apex Court inter alia on the ground that there is jurisdictional error in entertaining the petition under Article 227 ignoring the alternative remedy already availed. Accepting the submission, the Supreme Court faulted the High Court for entertaining the petition under Article 227 ignoring the effective alternative remedy. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted observing that the High Court may take note that the respondent had an effective alternative remedy against the order of the State Commission. The relevant observations are as under.
