Delhi High Court
M/S Radiant Hotels Private Ltd vs Uday Pilani on 14 October, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
$~54(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1092/2022 & CM APPL.44701/2022, CM
APPL.44702/2022
M/S RADIANT HOTELS PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Tanmay Nayar, Adv.
versus
UDAY PILANI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Zeb Hasan, Adv. with Mr.
Shwetank Sai Lakwal, AOR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
14.10.2022
1. This petition, under Article 2271 of the Constitution of India,
assails order dated 8th August 2022 passed by the learned National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in FA 80/2018
(Radiant Hotels Private Ltd.v. Uday Pilani), whereby the learned
1
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. -
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may--
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the
officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks
and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall
require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of
superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
CM(M) 1092/2022 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in CC 154/2015.
2. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the learned NCDRC lacked the jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order, as the initial complaint filed before the learned State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) was itself not
maintainable.
3. He submits that the point of jurisdiction was raised both before
the learned NCDRC as well as before the learned SCDRC, but has not
been considered by the learned NCDRC in the impugned order dated
8th August 2022.
4. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Specifically dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the Writ Court,
exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
against an order passed by the learned NCDRC in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has, in Ibrat Faizan v.
Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd2, cautioned thus:
―28. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of
the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case
of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.3,which has been
consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of
this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand
Goel4). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article
227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the
parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the
2
2022 SCC Online SC 620
3
(2001) 8 SCC 97
4
2022 SCC OnLine SC 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
CM(M) 1092/2022 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
Constitution. It goes without saying that even while
considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order
passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be
subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.‖
5. The relevant passages from in Estralla Rubber2 and Garment
Craft3, which are cited by the Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan1, may
be reproduced thus:
Estralla Rubber2
―7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd.
v. Ram Tahel Ramnand5 in para 12 has stated that the power
under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used
sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors.
Reference also has been made in this regard to the case
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath6. This Court in Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte7 has observed that the
power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be
invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court
can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal
and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when
the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by
these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded
its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned
order.
(Emphasis supplied)
*****
AIR 1972 SC 1598
AIR 1954 SC 215
AIR 1975 SC 1297
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
Garment Craft3
15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly
of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand
Goel v. Garment Craft8] is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from
the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of
first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts
upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own
decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court
or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar9] The jurisdiction exercised is in
the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is
exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is
no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that
no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion
that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that
such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is
no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227,
this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd2 has
observed :
―6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in a
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of
power under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943
(2010) 1 SCC 217
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of
the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles
of law or justice, where if the High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is
also well settled that the High Court while acting
under this Article cannot exercise its power as an
appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place
of that of the subordinate court to correct an error,
which is not apparent on the face of the record. The
High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts
of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence
at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no
reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not
review, judicially, the order of the learned Court below. Far less does
it exercise jurisdiction which can be said to be akin, in any manner of
speaking, to that exercised by an Appellate Court. The power vested
in the High Court over the learned Court below, by Article 227, is one
of superintendence. Article 227 jurisdiction is exclusively, and at all
times, supervisory and correctional in nature. It is intended to correct
the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below and not to
review errors in the order under challenge. The following passage
from Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd10, makes this
position of law apparent:
―7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined
only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has
(2003) 3 SCC 524
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an
error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an
error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under
Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act
as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not
permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the
evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports
to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the
decision.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In view of this position, I have already held in Kushal Anand v.
Mandhir Sachdeva11 as well as Shakuntala v. Rani12, that points,
which are not argued before the Court below, cannot be raised in a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the Court
below cannot be treated as having erred in exercise of jurisdiction, as
would call for correction in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, in
failing to consider a point which was never urged before it. The mere
fact that the submission may figure as a ground in the pleadings
before the Court below would not be sufficient to justify interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Every point that is
pleaded in writing is rarely canvassed during arguments, and the
Court cannot be expected to return findings on all points pleaded,
even if the Counsel do not seek to urge them during oral arguments.
8. Mr. Yadav submits on instructions that, in fact, the point of
jurisdiction was actually argued before the learned NCDRC though it
is not reflected in the impugned order.
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2102
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2210
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004403
9. In that event, the Supreme Court has held in Daman Singh v.
State of Punjab13, the remedy with the concerned litigant would be to
re-approach the Court, which has passed the order and request it to
consider the point in question, which was urged but has not been
reflected in the decision.
10. Mr. Yadav seeks liberty to move the learned NCDRC with an
appropriate application for that said purpose.
11. Leave and liberty is granted as prayed for.
12. Needless to say, it would be for the learned NCDRC to take a
call as to whether a case for consideration of the said submission is
made out or not. This Court does not express any view thereon. Nor
this Court has expressed any view on the merits of the submission
with respect to jurisdiction, which has been raised by Mr. Yadav.
13. The learned NCDRC is respectfully requested, on the petitioner
moving an application in that regard, to decide the application as
expeditiously as possible.
14. With liberty as aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 14, 2022/rb
(1985) 2 SCC 670
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
16:50:46
