Delhi High Court
Emaar Mgf Land Ltd & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 October, 2022
$~31 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 253/2020 & CM APPL. 7683/2020
EMAAR MGF LAND LTD & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr.
Arindam Dey and Mr. Saubhagya Sundriyal,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv. for R-
1/UOI
Mr. Ajay Laroia, Adv. with Mr. Rajinder
Kumar, Advs. for R-2 and 3
Mr. Gaura Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 17.10.2022
1. The petitioner Emaar MGF Land Ltd is aggrieved by orders
dated 20th September 2019 passed by the learned National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC") in First
Appeal 1079/2017 (Emaar MGF Land Ltd v. Amlok Singh Sandhu),
and 22nd November 2019, whereby RA 297/2019, seeking review of
the order dated 20th September 2019, has been dismissed by the
learned NCDRC.
2. Paras 1 to 5 of the order dated 20th September 2019, passed by
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
the learned NCDRC in FA 1079/2017, read as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for both sides, and perused the
entire material on record.
2. F.A. no. 402 of 2017 was decided by this Commission
vide its reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018.
Similar facts and same questions of law are involved.
3. We note that the instant first appeal, F.A. no. 1079 of
2017, is similar to the F.A. no. 402 of 2017 decided by this
Commission vide its Order dated 26.07.2018.
4. The instant first appeal, F.A, no. 1079 of 2017, is
disposed of in terms of the examination and reasons as
contained in the Order dated 26.07.2018 in F.A. no 402 of
2017.
5. Specifically, the award, as firmed-up in para 36 of the
Order dated 26.07.2018 in F.A. no. 402 of 2017, shall be
applicable, mutatis mutandis, in the instant first appeal, F.A.
no. 1079 of 2017."
(Emphasis supplied)
FA 402 of 2017, be it noted, was titled as Emaar MGF Land Ltd. V.
Govind Paul ("Govind Paul", hereinafter).
3. Thus, the order dated 20th September 2019 did not contain any
independent reasons for deciding the petitioner's first appeal. The
learned NCDRC merely chose to adopt, mutatis mutandis, order dated
26th July 2018 in Govind Paul.
4. The petitioner moved RA 297/2019 before the learned NCDRC
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 20th September 2019. In
para 17 of the said review application, the petitioner enumerated
various features which, according to the petitioner, distinguished the
petitioner's case from the case of Govind Paul.
5. The review application of the petitioner was dismissed vide the
following order dated 22nd November 2019, which appears to have
been passed in circulation, as there is no appearance of any counsel
recorded thereon:
"Dated: 22.11.2019
ORDER
The review was listed in chamber; it was taken up in
bench.
This review application has been filed against the
Order dated 20.09.2019 passed by this Commission.
We have perused the relevant material including inter
alia the review application filed by the appellants/applicants
and the Order dated 20.09.2019 as well as the Order dated
26.07.2018 of this Commission.
The Order dated 20.09.2019 is self-contained and self-
speaking.
We find no error apparent, nor any reason evident, to
re-open and reexamine the case in review.
The review application, being bereft of merit, is
dismissed.
The Order dated 20.09.2019 stands as it stood."
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned NCDRC
could not have proceeded, in the case of the petitioner, in the manner
in which it did.
7. Mr. Dhanesh Relan has also drawn the attention of this Court to
a short order dated 21st July 2000 passed by the Supreme Court in
HVPNL v. Mahavir 1, which, with respect to the manner in which first
appeals should be disposed of by the learned NCDRC, holds thus, in
para 2:
"2. We may point out that while dealing with a First
Appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The
Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case,
the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for
consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter
by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any
appeal in this fashion and the higher Courts would not know
whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the
case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at
Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be
communicated to the Commission."
8. In the present case, it is apparent that, apart from adopting,
mutatis mutandis, the order passed by it in Govind Paul, the order
dated 26th July 2018 of the learned NCDRC contains no finding with
respect to the facts of the said appeal or the points in issue therein.
9. In the event that an appeal which comes up for hearing before
the learned NCDRC is identical, on facts and law, to an earlier appeal
that has been decided, it might, in a given case, be permissible for the
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
learned NCDRC to adopt the decision in the earlier case to the later
mutatis mutandis. If, however, either party moves an application
seeking review of the order and highlights, in the application, points of
distinction between the two cases, the learned NCDRC is required, at
the very least, to return a finding on the said contentions, while
dealing with the Review Application.
10. The order dated 22nd November 2019, which appears to have
been passed in Chamber, does not record any finding regarding the
points of distinction between the petitioner's case and Govind Paul.
11. The result is that the petitioner has been denied an opportunity,
both at the stage of decision of the appeal as well as at the stage of
review, to distinguish the case of the petitioner from Govind Paul.
Equally, as neither order distinguishes the two cases, the submissions
of the petitioner with respect to the points of difference between the
present case and Govind Paul, as contained in the review application
filed by the petitioner, have gone undecided on merits.
12. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the
present petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd
November 2019 passed by the learned NCDRC and remanding the
matter to the learned NCDRC for de novo consideration of RA
297/2019 filed by the petitioner before it.
(2001) 10 SCC 659
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
13. Inasmuch as the submissions of the petitioner with respect to the
features which distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of
Govind Paul have not met with any decision on merits either in the
order dated 20th September 2019 or in the order dated 20th November
2019, the learned NCDRC is requested to grant a personal hearing to
both parties before taking a decision on RA 297/2019 de novo.
14. This Court is making it clear that it does not express any
opinion on whether the facts of FA 1079/2017 were, or were not,
identical to those in FA 402/2017. Equally, this Court does not
express any opinion on whether the grounds on which the petitioner
seeks to distinguish the two cases are, or are not, meritorious.
15. The learned NCDRC would be at liberty to take a view in the
matter.
16. For the said purpose, both parties may appear before the learned
NCDRC on 10th November 2022.
17. The learned NCDRC is requested to take a decision on the
petitioner's review application as expeditiously as possible.
18. The petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 17, 2022/dsn
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:20.10.2022
12:31:01
