ARCHI CONSTRUCTION, THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. PANKAJ GUPTA & ANR. vs NAMITA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06th August, 2025 + CM(M) 1446/2023 & CM APPL. 46181/2023 ARCHI CONSTRUCTION, THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. PANKAJ GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Advocate (appearance not given). versus NAMITA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shamik Bagehi & Mr. Farhad Mallik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 01.08.2023 passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) in Revision Petition No. 1608/2023. 2. The above matter was filed before learned NCDRC impugning order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned State Commission, Kolkata in First Appeal No.A-283/2022. 3. Since the cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of other High Court, relying upon judgments dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1446/2023 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:07.08.2025 17:05:00 Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4205 and General Manager, Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Rohit Malhotra: (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415, learned counsel for petitioner, now, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 4. In Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC, having seat in Delhi, had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by t