Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 45]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Ncdrc Bar Association (Regd.) vs Davinder Malhotra & Ors. on 18 July, 2008

  
 
 
 
 
 
 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

  NEW DELHI 

 

  

 REVISION PETITION NO.
2916 OF 2008 

 

(From the
order dated 4.4.08 in Appeal No.183/07 of the State Commission,   Delhi) 

 

   

 NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.)  Petitioner

 Versus

 Davinder Malhotra & Ors.  Respondents
 

BEFORE :

HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, MEMBER   For the Petitioner : Mr.R.P. Bhatt, Sr.Advocate with Mr.J.B. Mudgil, Advocate   18.07.2008   O R D E R   Prima facie, it appears that the State Commission forgets that, in addition to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission for brief) is having supervisory jurisdiction over consumer fora in the country. This should be remembered by the State Commission before commenting that the orders passed by the National Commission are not binding to the Delhi State Commission. Hence, unless there is a contrary judgement by the Apex Court, the State Commission is bound to follow the decision rendered by the National Commission. Further, if there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgement.
 

Further, the State Commission must remember that constitution of Bench before the National Commission is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the President of the National Commission and the Benches are to be constituted on the basis of power conferred under Section 20 of the Act. The State Commission has no business to interfere and criticize whether the constitution of Bench is justified or not.

 

In view of the above, Notice to the parties returnable on 28th August 2008.

 

Meantime, observations made by the State Commission in the impugned order are stayed because it may lead to indiscipline and insubordination with other consumer fora.

 

Registry is directed to call for the record of this matter from the State Commission.

 

.J. ( M.B. SHAH) PRESIDENT   J. (K.S. GUPTA) MEMBER   .J. (R.C. JAIN) MEMBER /sra/ 1 / Court-1