Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents  ||  Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed  ||  Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System  ||  Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs  ||  Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice  ||  Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals  ||  J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training    

Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited - (Supreme Court) (13 May 2022)

Writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution before High Court is maintainable against the National Commission's Appellate Order

MANU/SC/0642/2022

Consumer

The original Respondent before the High Court has preferred the present appeal against impugned interim order passed by the High Court, by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has stayed order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National Commission), while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National Commission, in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is the moot question for consideration before this Court.

The High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the Act, 2019. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised.

The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., which has been consistently followed by this Court. Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It cannot be said that, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved