w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Global Hospitals & Others v/s The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Rep. by its President & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG1996PTC025213

Company & Directors' Information:- B N GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400PB2014PTC038543

Company & Directors' Information:- K V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2014PTC263567

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2007PTC052534

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999DL1992PLC048880

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073765

Company & Directors' Information:- T & I GLOBAL LTD. [Active] CIN = L29130WB1991PLC050797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND E HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KL2003PTC016562

Company & Directors' Information:- K G GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC104788

Company & Directors' Information:- A. V. GLOBAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2007PTC159315

Company & Directors' Information:- A N GLOBAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92110MH1985PLC035269

Company & Directors' Information:- D S GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071516

Company & Directors' Information:- A B C GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2011PTC035103

Company & Directors' Information:- I A T GLOBAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24116DL1997PTC084916

Company & Directors' Information:- J D GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC091270

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2011PTC042705

Company & Directors' Information:- B N G GLOBAL INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52590DL2011PLC225377

Company & Directors' Information:- N K COMPANY (GLOBAL) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52390WB2010PTC153624

Company & Directors' Information:- K B K GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24296DL2016PTC290487

Company & Directors' Information:- K P S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ1994PTC004918

Company & Directors' Information:- M & D GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31101UP1974PTC003937

Company & Directors' Information:- B R S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN1988PTC016237

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200WB2007PTC120797

Company & Directors' Information:- V H M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073497

Company & Directors' Information:- M M GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29120WB1986PTC041280

Company & Directors' Information:- R V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC195301

Company & Directors' Information:- M M C GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U11200MH2010PTC206910

Company & Directors' Information:- S R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC084553

Company & Directors' Information:- H V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC103960

Company & Directors' Information:- R P GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193409

Company & Directors' Information:- M S GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH2008PTC213273

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V GLOBAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1994PLC059032

Company & Directors' Information:- D B R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2003PTC041648

Company & Directors' Information:- FORUM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22210MH1950PTC008153

Company & Directors' Information:- N B GLOBAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2012PTC051614

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL2005PTC143152

Company & Directors' Information:- M M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U85110UP1993PTC015371

Company & Directors' Information:- R K FORUM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13209OR2008PTC009973

Company & Directors' Information:- K C HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110PB2012PTC035880

Company & Directors' Information:- B M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2005PTC058062

Company & Directors' Information:- S A HOSPITALS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MH2002PLC136697

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2010PTC041489

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2002PTC117618

Company & Directors' Information:- M. R. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110UP1995PTC018165

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110HP1992PTC012651

Company & Directors' Information:- A M GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC261061

Company & Directors' Information:- L S A GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098308

Company & Directors' Information:- V K R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110TG2011PTC075009

Company & Directors' Information:- R L GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300HP2014PTC000764

Company & Directors' Information:- V P HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2011PTC220548

Company & Directors' Information:- G R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102KA2013PTC069586

Company & Directors' Information:- H. E. GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72901GJ2016PTC092866

    Writ Petition No. 8377 of 2018

    Decided On, 02 August 2018

    At, In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

    For the Petitioners: T. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, GP for Civil Supplies, R2, None appeared.



Judgment Text

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the Docket Order, dated 28-02-2018, in EA.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a declaration that the entertainment of EA.No.6 of 2017 in C.C.No.374 of 2014 pending the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, is illegal and arbitrary.

Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not entered appearance. We have heard learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

The issue as to whether, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), the District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 27 of the said Act, when an appeal is pending, is no longer res integra as far as this Court is concerned.

In MAYTAS PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs. A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ORS (AIR 2013 Andhra Pradesh 93), a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

'19. On a plain reading of Section 27 of the Act, it is clear that it is penal in nature and is intended to empower the District Forum or the State/National Commission to punish not only the opposite party but also the complainant if it comes to the conclusion that the action on the part of the defaulter is dishonest and intentional. As explained in VISHWABARATHI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY'S case (5 supra) and also in C.V. RATNAM'S case (2 supra), Section 27 is akin to Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 27 of C.P.C. It is no doubt true that the object of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and the procedure to be followed for settlement of consumer disputes is summary in nature. However, having regard to the fact that Section 27 is a penal provision under which noncompliance of the order of the District Forum or the State/National Commission would be punishable by way of imprisonment or fine, we are of the opinion that Section 27 cannot be equated with the other provisions of the Act providing for settlement of consumer disputes by the District Forum and State/National Commission. Therefore, the penal proceedings under Section 27 cannot be allowed to be taken recourse to even before the order of the District Forum or State/National Commission attains finality merely on the ground that the Act provides for speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. In fact, the language of Section 24 of the Act is plain and unambiguous and makes it clear that the order of a District Forum or State/National Commission shall be final only if no appeal has been preferred against such order. The law is well settled that the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Therefore, as held by the Full Bench in C.V.RATNAM'S case (2 supra) Section 27 can be taken recourse to only by way of last resort after the order attains finality as provided under Section 24 of the Act.

20. The reliance placed by the State Commission upon ATMA RAM PROPERTIES P. LTD.'S case (3 supra) while passing the impugned order in our considered opinion is misplaced. The decision in ATMA RAM PROPERTIES P. LTD.'S case (3 supra) was rendered in the light of Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C. which provides that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except where execution of decree is stayed. Admittedly no such provision is available in the Act. On the other hand, it is expressly provided under Section 24 of the Act that the order of the District Forum or the State Commission shall be final if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of the Act. In the light of Section 24, it can be safely concluded that the penal proceedings under Section 27 of the Act cannot be entertained while an appeal is pending before the State/National Commission.'

On the direction issued by this Court, the President of Respondent No.1-Forum has filed his personal affidavit, dated 27.06.2018, wherein he has inter alia relied upon order dated 28.02.2018 in NILKALAM PATEL Vs. JAGDISH GOVARDHAN BHAI SHODHAN (I(2015) CPJ 109 (NC). It is stated in the said affidavit that the National Consumer Redressal Commission (for short 'the Commission') referred to the judgment of this Court in MAYTAS PROPERTIES LIMITED case (supra) and after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AATMARAM PROPERTIES Vs. FEDERAL MOTORS, reported in VII (2004) SLT 494, it has held that inspite of pendency of the appeal, the District Forum can proceed with the Execution Petition. He stated that the Forum passed orders with bonafide intention and with prudence and there is no intention of defying the orders of this Court.

It is trite law that the High Court being a Constitutional Court and the Court of Record, its judgments are binding precedents on everyone, including the Courts and Fora functioning within its jurisdiction. In MAYTAS PROPERTIES (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in unequivocal terms held that mere pendency of appeal is sufficient to bar the District Forum from proceeding with the execution of the orders during the pendency of appeal before the State Commission. Even if the National Commission refuses to follow the said judgment, the same still binds respondent No.1-Forum, as this Court is the jurisdictional Court, whose judgments bind the said respondent and the order of the National Commission cannot destroy the precedential value of this Court.

The learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that no judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, including that in AATMARAM PROPERTIES (supra), which was referred in ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DISTRICT CONSUMER PROTECTION FORUM (I (2009) CPJ 104 (DB) rendered by the Allahabad High Court and referred in the decision of the National Commission in NILKALAM PATEL (supra), has dealt with the issue arising in this case. In the absence of any such judgment of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view, the judgment in MAYTAS PROPERTIES (supra) continues to bind respondent No.1-Forum, despite the fact that the National Commission in NILKALAM PATEL (supra) has not chosen to follow the said judgment.

In the above

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

view of the matter, respondent No.1-Forum has not properly comprehended the jurisprudential doctrine of binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court and refused to follow the same labouring under an obvious misconception that order of the National Commission has a higher precedential value and that it could eclipse the judgment of this Court. On an analysis as above, respondent No.1-Forum is prohibited from proceeding with E.A.No.6 of 2017 in C.C.No.374 of 2014 till disposal of the appeal by the State Forum. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2018 shall stand disposed of accordingly.
O R