Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 23 NOVEMBER, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 604/2022 & CM APPL. 45661/2022
MR. M. H. PATEL ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant – in person.
versus
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Mr. Chirag
Sharma, Advocates for Respondents
No.2 & 3
Mr. K. K. Jha, Advocate for
Respondent No.6
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 31.08.2022, passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2190/2020, dismissing the Writ
Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein challenging the Order dated
15.11.2019, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’) in Revision Petition
No.2196/2019.
2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are as under:
a) It is the case of the Appellant herein that he purchased two gold
bars of 999.9 purity weighing 500 grams each from Bank of
India (Respondents No.4 & 5 herein) and deposited the same
with the State Bank of India (Respondents No.2 & 3 herein)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 1 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
under a scheme called ‘SBI Gold Deposit Scheme’. It is stated
that as per the Scheme, for determination of actual weight and
purity of the gold, the gold bars were sent to Government of
India Mint for testing their purity by melting. It is stated that on
melting the gold bars, their purity was found to be 999.9 purity,
however, there was a nominal loss to the extent of 0.04% of the
weight of the gold bars during the process of melting. It is
stated that as certified by India Government Mint, the weight of
the gold in 995 purity would be 502.161gms. for one bar and
501.809 gms. for the other bar. It was also certified that the
weight in 999.0 purity would be 500.150 gms in respect of one
bar and 499.800 gms in respect of the other bar. It is stated that
based upon the purity and weight so determined by the
Government Mint, the State Bank of India sent certificates to the
Appellant herein in terms of the Scheme under which the gold
bars were deposited by him and he was informed that the weight
of the gold bars deposited by him was 499.8 in respect of one bar
and 500.150 in respect of the other bar in 999 purity.
b) It is stated that the Appellant herein approached the concerned
District Forum by filing a consumer complaint disputing the
weight given in the certificates and seeking compensation.
c) It is stated that the District Forum vide its Order dated
03.08.2017 found that the Bank of India and State Bank of India
had committed deficiency in providing service and had adopted
unfair trade practice in respect of gold deposited by the
Appellant herein under the Scheme. The District Forum held that
after completion of tenure of the Scheme, the State Bank of India
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 2 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
should return gold bars with same purity and weight as was
deposited by the Appellant herein.
d) It is stated that the said Order was challenged by the State Bank
of India by filing an appeal, being Appeal No. A/17/1138, before
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC),
Maharashtra, Mumbai, and the same was dismissed by the
SCDRC vide Order dated 18.07.2019.
e) Thereafter, the State Bank of India filed a Revision Petition,
being Revision Petition No.2196/2019, before the NCDRC. The
NCDRC, vide Order dated 15.11.2019, after going through the
Scheme, held that the Scheme, as floated by the State Bank of
India envisages acceptance of gold in scrap form and, therefore,
the State Bank of India had to send the gold deposited by the
Appellant herein to the Government Mint for the purpose of
melting the same and determining its purity. NCDRC further
held that the Appellant herein having accepted all the terms and
conditions of the Scheme and having deposited the gold with the
State Bank of India, can have no grievance on account of the
Bank sending the gold bars to the Government Mint for the
purpose of ascertaining their weight and purity as the purity of
the gold bars could not have been correctly determined without
melting them. The NCDRC held that since the State Bank of
India was to accept the gold only in melted form and even
otherwise, it was necessary to melt the gold bars in order to
verify their purity, and the loss which happened during the
process of melting has to be borne by the Appellant herein and
not by the State Bank of India. It held that the State Bank of India
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 3 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
was to pay interest in respect of only that quantity of gold as was
left with them after the process of melting. The NCDRC,
therefore, held that the State Bank of India was required to return
only that quantity of gold as was left with them after the process
of melting and verifying the purity of the gold bars. The NCDRC
also held that as per the Scheme, the Bank is required to redeem
the gold either in 995 purity or in 999 purity. It held that the
certificates sent by the State Bank of India to the
Complainant/Appellant herein gave the weight of the gold bars
as determined by the Government Mint in 999 purity and,
therefore, the Complainant/Appellant herein can have no
grievance with respect to the quantity or the purity of the gold
which the State Bank of India has promised to return. The
NCDRC, therefore, allowed the Revision Petition.
f) The Order dated 15.11.2019, allowing the Revision Petition filed
by the State Bank of India, was challenged by the Appellant
before the Supreme Court by filing a Petition, being Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2551/2020. The Apex Court,
vide Order dated 07.02.2020, rejected the said appeal on the
ground that it is not inclined to entertain the Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
g) The Appellant herein filed a Review Petition before the NCDRC
which was also dismissed vide Order dated 11.03.2020.
Thereafter, the Appellant once again filed a petition before the
NCDRC seeking recall of the Order dated 15.11.2019 and Order
dated 11.03.2020. The said petition was also dismissed vide
Order dated 26.11.2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 4 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
h) The Appellant, thereafter, approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition, being W.P. (C) 2190/2020, challenging the Order dated
15.11.2019, passed by the NCDRC. Notice was issued in the said
Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge on 26.02.2020. The
learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 31.08.2022, dismissed
the said Writ Petition on the ground that the Appellant herein had
challenged the very same Order which has been challenged by
him before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition
which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.02.2020 and,
therefore, the Writ Petition was not maintainable.
i) The Appellant has, thereafter, approached this Court by filing the
instant appeal challenging the Order dated 31.08.2022, passed by
the learned Single Judge.
3. Heard the Appellant, who appears in person, and the Counsel for the
State Bank of India and the Government Mint and perused the material on
record.
4. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the
Appellant herein on the ground that since the Appellant herein had already
approached the Supreme Court assailing the very same Order which was
challenged in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable,
requires interference or not.
5. Admittedly, the Order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the NCDRC, was
challenged by the Appellant before the Apex Court by filing a Petition,
being Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2551/2020, which was
dismissed by the Apex Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 5 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
6. It is well settled that a decision rendered by a competent Court cannot
be challenged in collateral proceedings and if it is permitted to do so there
would be confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceedings would
have no meaning. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Indu
Bhusan Jana v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 626 , has observed
that upon an order attaining finality, it matters little as to whether it was
erroneous. It has held that a party aggrieved by an order has to work out his
remedies within the legal framework and if an issue or the entire lis is
concluded upon a finding being rendered and such finding remains
unchallenged, it is no longer open to the party to undo the effect thereof at
any subsequent stage or collaterally unless it is demonstrated that the finding
was obtained by fraud or the Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the order. It
further held that the hierarchy in the judiciary exists to afford litigants to
climb up the ladder in pursuit of justice and to right a wrong committed at a
lower level but if a litigant accepts an order, he does it to his prejudice and
binds himself thereby.
7. The Division Bench of the Culcutta High Court also held that the
principle of finality or res judicata is a matter of public policy and is one of
the pillars on which a judicial system is founded and once a judgment
becomes conclusive, the matters in issue covered thereby cannot be
reopened unless fraud or mistake or lack of jurisdiction is cited to challenge
it directly at a later stage. It further held that the said principle is rooted in
the rationale that the issues decided may not be reopened, and has little to do
with the merit of the decision and if it were to be otherwise, no dispute can
be resolved or concluded. The Division Bench also held that the principles
of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply equally to proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution and a decision pronounced by a Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 6 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
of competent jurisdiction is binding between the parties unless it is modified
or reversed by adopting a procedure prescribed by law. It held that it is in
the interest of the public at large that finality should be attached to the
binding decisions pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction and it is
also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over in
the assessment of the same matter in issue and even in case of a judgment
passed incuriam which is unchallenged, the efficacy and binding nature of
the operative order is conclusive inter partes . The Division Bench further
held that the principle applies both to an order from which an appeal lies and
no appeal is preferred as well as to an order from which no appeal is
provided.
8. This Court is in complete agreement with the ratio and opinion
rendered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid
judgment.
9. The Apex Court in Union of India v. S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351 ,
has observed as under:
“ 76 . A decision rendered by a competent court cannot
be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason
that if it is permitted to do so there would be
“confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings
would cease to have any meaning”.
77 . In Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC
749] a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was filed seeking reconsideration of the
judgment rendered by this Court on the ground that the
said judgment is incorrect. Rejecting the prayer, this
Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution is not
available to assail the correctness of the decision on
merit or to claim its reconsideration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 7 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
78 . In the case of Babu Singh Bains etc. versus Union
of India and others etc., AIR 1997 SC 116, this Court
reiterated the settled principal of law that once an
order passed on merit by this Court exercising the
power under Article 136 of the Constitution has
become final no writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution on the self-same issue is maintainable.
The principle of constructive res judicata stands fast in
his way in his way to raise the same contention once
over.
79 . In Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. vs. The
Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, (1996) 3
SCC 114, this Court re-iterated the view as under:
"In a case like the present, where in substance the
challenge is to the correctness of a decision on
merits after it has become final, there can be no
question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution
to claim reconsideration of the decision on the
basis of its effect in accordance with law.
Frequent resort to the decision in Antulay (AIR
1988 SC 1531) in such situations is wholly
misconceived and impels us to emphasis this
fact."
80 . In M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka &
Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1113, this Court held that doctrine
of res-judicata was not a technical doctrine but a
fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in
ensuring finality in litigation. The main object of the
doctrine is to promote a fair administration of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of the court on the
issues which have become final between the parties.
The doctrine was based on two age old principles,
namely, 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' which
means that it is in the interest of the State that there
should be an end to litigation and the other principle is
'nemo debet bis vexari si constat curiae quod sit pro
una et eadem causa' meaning thereby that no one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 8 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to
the Court that it is for one and the same cause.
81 . Thus, the principle of finality of litigation is based
on a sound firm principle of public policy. In the
absence of such a principle great oppression might
result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch
as there will be no end to litigation. The doctrine of
res- judicata has been evolved to prevent such an
anarchy.
82 . In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of
judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is
attached to the finality of the judgment and it is not
permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded
judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount
to merely an abuse of the process of the court but
would have far reaching adverse affect on the
administration of justice. It would also nullify the
doctrine of stare decisis a well established valuable
principle of precedent which cannot be departed from
unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
The judgments of the court and particularly the Apex
Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled
lightly.
83 . Precedent keeps the law predictable and the law
declared by this Court, being the law of the land, is
binding on all courts/tribunals and authorities in India
in view of Article 141 of the Constitution. The judicial
system "only works if someone is allowed to have the
last word" and the last word so spoken is accepted and
religiously followed. The doctrine of stare decisis
promotes a certainty and consistency in judicial
decisions and this helps in the development of the law.
Besides providing guidelines for individuals as to what
would be the consequences if he chooses the legal
action, the doctrine promotes confidence of the people
in the system of the judicial administration. Even
otherwise it is an imperative necessity to avoid
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 9 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
uncertainty, confusion. Judicial propriety and decorum
demand that the law laid down by the highest Court of
the land must be given effect to.
84 . In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., AIR
2002 SC 1771, this Court dealt with the issue and held
that reconsideration of a judgment of this Court which
has attained finality is not normally permissible. A
decision upon a question of law rendered by this Court
was conclusive and would bind the court in subsequent
cases. The court cannot sit in appeal against its own
judgment.
85 . In Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009,
this Court held as under:
"At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that
certainty and continuity are essential ingredients
of the rule of law. Certainty in law would be
considerably eroded and suffer a serious setback
if the highest court of the land readily overrules
the view expressed by it in earlier cases, even
though that view has held the field for a number
of years. In quite a number of cases which come
up before this Court, two views are possible, and
simply because the Court considers that the view
not taken by the Court in the earlier case was a
better view of the matter would not justify' the
overruling of the view. The law laid down by this
Court is binding upon all courts in the country
under Article 141 of the Constitution, and
numerous cases all over the country are decided
in accordance with the view taken by this Court.
Many people arrange their affairs and large
number of transactions also take place on the
faith of the correctness of the view taken by this
Court. It would create uncertainty, instability and
confusion if the law propounded by this Court on
the basis of which numerous cases have been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 10 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
decided and many transactions have taken place
is held to be not the correct law. "
Thus, in view of above, it can be held that doctrine of
finality has to be applied in a strict legal sense.”
10. The contention of the Appellant that the dismissal of his Special
Leave to Appeal does not amount to merger of the Order of the NCDRC and
the Supreme Court in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 , which, though is
attracted but cannot be accepted, in view of the principles of doctrine of
finality. Kunhayammed (supra) was dealing with the question as to whether
after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, can the Petitioner file a
review petition in the High Court. The Apex Court in that context held that
the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine
of merger and a person can still file a petition in the High Court. The issue
raised in the instant case is entirely different. The question here is that after
exhausting all the remedies that are available under the Statute, can a person
initiate a challenge collaterally in the High Court. In the opinion of this
Court, the same is not permissible.
11. This Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the case because
the issue agitated by the Appellant herein has already attained finality on the
dismissal of the SLP filed by him challenging the Order dated 15.11.2019,
passed by the NCDRC, and the Order of the learned Single Judge in refusing
to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein challenging the
same Order, i.e. Order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the NCDRC, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the SLP filed by
the Appellant herein has been dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 11 of 12
Neutral Citation Number of LPA-604/2022 is 2022/DHC/005152
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, along with pending
application(s), if any.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.11.2022
19:21:42
LPA 604/2022 Page 12 of 12