Delhi High Court
Zee Turner Ltd. & Anr. vs Society Of Catalysts & Ors. on 5 November, 2019
$~44 to 46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on 05.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & CM APPL. 16548/2007
ZEE TURNER LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tejveer Bhatia with Mr. Rohan
Swarup, Advocates.
versus
SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with
Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates.
Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent no. 8.
+ W.P.(C) 8780/2007 & CM APPL. 16551/2007
INDUSLND MEDIA & COMMUNICATION LTD. &
ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tejveer Bhatia with Mr. Rohan
Swarup, Advocates.
versus
SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with
Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates.
Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent no. 5.
+ W.P.(C) 8836/2007 & CM APPL. 16651/2007
HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD. & ANR..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Priya Puri with Ms. Yati Sharma
and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters Pg.1 of 3
versus
SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan with
Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. In the captioned matters challenge is laid by each of the writ
petitioners to the common order dated 19.11.20017 passed by the
State Commission (Delhi).
2. It is not in dispute that a statutory remedy under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'CPA') is available to the petitioners
against the impugned order of the State Commission. The remedy lies
with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
("NCDRC").
3. Mr. Salwan, who, appears on behalf of the respondents has in
fact, placed before me an order dated 31.10.2019, passed in W.P. (C)
4777/2018, titled: Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. Vs Soceity of
Catalysts to buttress his submission that the petitioners should be
relegated to the remedy available under the CPA.
3.1 Mr. Salwan informs me that in the Vodafone case a similar
issue arose whereupon the petitioners withdrew their petition with
liberty to prefer an appeal with the NCDRC.
3.2 This Court, as in evident on perusal of the order dated
31.10.2019, directed the NCDRC to decide the matter on merits
uninfluenced by the delay on preferring the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the
W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters Pg.2 of 3
fact that a statutory remedy both by way of an appeal as well as by a
revision is available to the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the
issues raised in the captioned matters can be adjudicated by the
NCDRC. As is apparent, the petitioners are not bereft of an
efficacious alternate remedy.
5. The captioned writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a
direction that the writ petitioners should approach the NCDRC for
ventilation of their grievance.
6. Needless to add, in computing the delay, the NCDRC will take
into account the fact that petitioners were bonafidely prosecuting the
captioned writ petitions before this Court.
7. Since there is an interim order dated 28.11.2007 operating in
favour of the petitioners, the same will continue to operate for a
further two weeks commencing from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order to enable the petitioners to approach the NCDRC.
8. In case, the petitioners do not take recourse to a statutory
remedy as indicated above within a period of four weeks from today,
the interim protection granted by this Court will dissolve
automatically.
9. Resultantly, the pending applications shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 05, 2019/c
W.P.(C) 8779/2007 & connected matters Pg.3 of 3
