State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Mahesh Yadav vs M/S M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 6 October, 2023
MAHESH YADAV V. M/S. M2K INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
06.10.2023
Present: Mr. Anuj Srivastav, Proxy for Mr. Ashwani Sharma,
Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Amila Gaur, Counsel for OP
IA NO.1222/2022 IN CC-887/2018
By this order we will dispose of the application bearing IA
No.1222/2022 filed by OP, wherein the OP relying upon the judgment
dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission passed in
CC No.1980/2017 titled Rajnish Bhasin v. Jaypee Infratech Limited &
Ors. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint for want of pecuniary
jurisdiction.
Reply to the aforesaid application has not been filed by the
Complainant till date.
Perusal of record shows that earlier before the District
Commission, the OP had filed similar application relying upon the
judgment dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission
passed in CC No.97/2016 titled Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 v. Ferrous
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to which the District Commission vide
order dated 16.04.2018 returned the complaint to the Complainant.
Thereafter, the Complainant presented the complaint before this
Commission.
The complaint was returned on the ground stating that cost of the
flat/plot exceeds Rs.20 Lakh as such the Forum does not have the
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the light of the judgment passed
Page 1 of 4
by the Hon'ble National Commission passed in CC No.97/2016 titled
Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Present application has been filed by the OP wherein the OP
relying upon the judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Hon'ble
National Commission passed in CC No.1980/2017 titled Rajnish Bhasin
v. Jaypee Infratech Limited & Ors. has prayed for dismissal of the
complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
We have perused both the judgments, the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (Supra) is a
judgment passed by the larger bench consisting of three Judges including
the Hon'ble President of the National Commission, whereas the judgment
in Rajnish Bhasin (Supra) is passed by a single Member.
It is settled law that the majority here would prevail the decision of a Bench of larger strength over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that although the Court sits in divisions of two and three Judges for the sake of convenience but it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three. To do so would be detrimental not only to the rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents but it will also lead to inconsistency in decisions on points of law; consistency and certainty in the development of law and its contemporary status both would be immediate casualty.
In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673, the Court summed up the position as follows:
Page 2 of 4(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.
(2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1247, has held as under:
"28. The conclusion (1) is that a decision delivered by a Bench of largest strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. It is the strength of the Bench and not number of Judges who have taken a particular view which is said to be relevant. However, conclusion (2) makes it absolutely clear that a Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. Quorum means the bench strength which was hearing the matter.
29. Thus, it has been rightly concluded that the numerical strength of the Judges taking a particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is determinative of the binding nature of the Judgment."
In our view, the present application has been filed malafidely with an intent to delay the proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the case Page 3 of 4 and the legal position having been explained, the application bearing IA No.1222/2022 stands dismissed with the costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid) bearing A/c No.10310544717, State Bank of India, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
Re-list the matter on 08.11.2023 for final arguments.
(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) Member (Judicial) (J.P. Agrawal) Member Page 4 of 4