Ecgc Ltd. (Formerly ... v. Meenakshi Saxena And..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No.(s). 6108-6109 of 2016,(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 21085-21086 of 2015)

Disposition

allowed

Judges

T.S. Thakur, C.J.
A.M. Khanwilkar
D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
T.S. Thakur, C.J.
A.M. Khanwilkar
D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Acts

Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Protection Act, Section 21(b)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, ECGC Ltd. (formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.), was aggrieved by an order dated 3 December 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. Against that order the appellant filed Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi. On 24 March 2015 the NCDRC dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn while granting liberty to seek “appropriate relief” before an “appropriate forum.” Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 21085–21086 of 2015 were then filed in the Supreme Court challenging both the State Commission’s order of 3 December 2014 and the NCDRC’s order of 24 March 2015. Leave was granted and the matters were heard on 11 July 2016.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the National Commission was justified in dismissing Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 as withdrawn, thereby declining to examine the merits of the State Commission’s order dated 3 December 2014.
In view of the Full Bench decision of the NCDRC dated 9 January 2015 (R.P. No. 1792 of 2012), whether a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable against an order of a State Commission passed in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Drew the Court’s attention to the Full Bench decision of the NCDRC dated 9 January 2015, which recognises the maintainability of a revision petition before the NCDRC against orders of a State Commission rendered in appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Expressed readiness to pursue the remedy of revision before the NCDRC in terms of that Full Bench ruling and requested that Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 be restored and remitted for adjudication on merits.

Respondents’ Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Full Bench Order of the National Commission, 9 January 2015, R.P. No. 1792 of 2012	No appeal lies against a State Commission’s appellate order, but such an order can be challenged before the NCDRC by way of revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.	The Supreme Court relied on this principle to remit Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 back to the NCDRC for consideration in light of the Full Bench view.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that the NCDRC had dismissed Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 as withdrawn without considering its maintainability in the wake of the Full Bench ruling delivered on 9 January 2015. Acknowledging the appellant’s willingness to pursue the revisional remedy recognised by that ruling, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the NCDRC’s dismissal order. It restored the revision petition and remitted it to the NCDRC for fresh disposal in accordance with law and “in the light of the Full Bench decision.” The Court expressly refrained from giving any opinion on the ultimate question of maintainability, leaving that issue open for the NCDRC to decide if it arises.

Holding and Implications

Appeals allowed in part; order dated 24 March 2015 of the NCDRC set aside; Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 restored and remitted to the NCDRC.

Consequences: The parties are to appear before the NCDRC on 5 September 2016, where the revision petition will be heard afresh. The Supreme Court’s order does not establish new substantive precedent; it simply ensures that the appellant’s revision will be determined on its merits in accordance with the Full Bench view, with no costs awarded.

Show full summary ...

Ecgc Ltd. (Formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Of India Ltd.) Etc. (S) v. Meenakshi Saxena And Ors. (S)

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by an order dated 3 December, 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, appellant-company preferred Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi. That revision was by an order dated 24 March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant-herein to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. The present appeals now assail not only order dated 3 December, 2014 but also order dated 24 March, 2015 by which the National Commission has dismissed the revision filed by the appellant against the said order.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the parties to an order dated 9 January, 2015 passed by a Full Bench of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1792 of 2012 whereby the National Commission has taken the view that although no appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, any order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction can be challenged before the National Commission by way of revision under 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to take resort to the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, mentioned above, and that the matter could for that purpose be remitted back to the National Commission.

4. We accordingly allow these appeals but only to the extent that order dated 24 March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand set aside, Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 restored and remitted back to the National Commission for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, referred to earlier.

5. Parties are directed to appear before the National Commission on Monday, the 5 September, 2016.

6. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion as to the maintainability of the revision petition before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction. The National Commission is free to examine that issue if at all there is an occasion to do so. No costs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21085-21086/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/12/2014 in RP No. 66/2014 24/03/2015 in RP No. 614/2015 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi)

ECGC Ltd. (Formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.) etc.….Petitioner(s)

v.

Meenakshi Saxena and Ors.….Respondent(s)

(with interim relief and office report)

Date : 11/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

(Before T.S. Thakur, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bharat Sangal, Adv.

Ms. Vernika Tomar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Adv.

Mr. George M. T, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

7. In terms of the signed order, these appeals are allowed:

“Leave granted.

xxxxxxxxx

We accordingly allow these appeals but only to the extent that order dated 24 March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand set aside, Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 restored and remitted back to the National Commission for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, referred to earlier.

Parties are directed to appear before the National Commission on Monday, the 5 September, 2016.

We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion as to the maintainability of the revision petition before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction. The National Commission is free to examine that issue if at all there is an occasion to do so. No costs.”

Ecgc Ltd. (Formerly ... v. Meenakshi Saxena And...