Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Consumer Protection Act, 2019
M/S. Goldrush Sales And Services Ltd. vs Rajiv Shukla & Anr. on 4 January, 2016
29. Given the said limited scope, this Commission cannot commit
an overreach so as to re-examine the issue of negligence once
RP 383 2026 • 21
concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the fora below that
have rightly relied upon the Order of the High Court as referred to
above, where the Respondent No.1 has been found not to be
negligent.
Section 100 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Rubi(Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 18 March, 2011
26. We cannot subscribe to this submission for the additional
reason that the judgment of the High Court was a judicial intervention
during the pendency of the Complaint, and given its binding effect
regarding the finding on negligence, the fora below could not have
ignored it. Not only this, the State Commission has also recorded
separate reasons apart from the impact of the Order of the High
Court. The National Commission, therefore, cannot exercise powers
RP 383 2026 18
so as to upturn the conclusion drawn by the High Court in the
extraordinary jurisdiction of Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
As stated above, all Commissions are within the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court. Over and above this, we may further
refer to the ratio of the decisions in the cases that we have mentioned
at the outset regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this
Commission. As noted above, Section-21 (b) of the 1986 Act and the
provisions of Section-58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act are perimeteria. While
interpreting Section-21(b), the Apex Court in the case of Rubi
(Chandra) Dutta (supra) has observed as under:
Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd . on 8 September, 2022
28. Another decision elaborating on the same and holding that the
revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with concurrent
findings of facts by the fora below in the case of Rajiv Shukla
(supra) observed as follows:
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
14. The Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State Of
Punjab & Anr., reported in 2005 (6) SCC, 1 in paragraph
Nos.28 and 29 has held as under:-