Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:04.07.2024
Pronounced on:31.07.2024
+ CM(M) 788/2022 & CM APPLs. 34733/2022, 38325/2022,
44182/2022, 5751/2023, 12357/2023
GAGAN DEEP DUGAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Kanika Agnihotri,
Mr.Sachin Sharma & Mr.Satvik
Rai, Advs.
versus
RELIGARE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjiv Kakra, Sr. Adv. &
Mr.J.K. Das, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Sandeep Das, Mr.Vipin
Tyagi, Ms.Kanak Malik,
Mr.Tejasvi Mahajan,
Mr.Akaash Madan & Mr.Ankit
Mangla, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for the
following reliefs:
“ (i.) Set aside order dated 06.07.2022 passed
by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer
Complaint No. 2609 of 2018;
(ii.) Direct the Respondent to not charge any
further amounts to the Petitioners under the
garb of equal monthly instalments till final
disposal of the Complaint;
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 1 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
(iii.) Declare that the right of Respondent
Bank to file Written Version stood closed after
elapse of 45 days from the date the notice &
complaint was served on the Respondent;
(iv.) Direct that the Complaint No. 2609 of
2018 be decided expeditiously.”
Brief Facts
2. The petitioners, on 26.11.2018, filed a complaint under Section
21(a) read with Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(in short, „Act‟), being Consumer Case No.2609/2018 titled Gagan
Duggal & Ors. v. Maharishi Housing Development Finance
Corporation Limited & Anr ., before the learned National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
„NCDRC‟), praying for the following reliefs:
“a) Allow the present complaint against the
Opposite Parties and in favor of all the
aggrieved individuals such as the
Complainants who have been gravely
prejudiced by the arbitrary business practices
of the Opposite Party;
b) Declare the Opposite Party guilty of
adopting unfair, restrictive and arbitrary trade
practices with the intent of unduly enriching
itself to the sole prejudice of its consumers;
c) Pass a direction that the clauses as
impugned in paragraph 31 are arbitrary,
unfair, restrictive and against the interest of
consumers and consequentially sticking them
down;
d) Direct the Opposite Parties to delete the
impugned unfair, restrictive and arbitrary
clauses from their template agreement and
make available revised agreements;
e) Adjudicate and declare the interest that
would be considered reasonable for the same
to be charged by the Opposite Party from its
consumers, including but not limited to the
complainants;
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 2 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
f) Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the
entire amount that has been paid to it in excess
of the figure adjudicated by this Hon'ble
Commission, to all its consumers, including
but not limited to the Complainants;
g) Direct the Opposite Party to issue a 'No
Dues Certificate' to its consumers, including
but not limited to the complainants;
h) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount
of Rs 50,00,000/- to each of the consumers,
including but not limited to the complainant on
account of mental harassment and agony that
they have been subjected to by the unfair and
restrictive trade practices of the Opposite
Party;
i) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the consumers,
including but not limited to the complainants,
on account of costs of litigation;
j) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an interest
to all its consumers including but not limited
to the complainants @24% p.a., on all of the
amounts prayed for above, from the date that
they become due till the date that the same are
paid.”
3. In the said Complaint, the petitioners allege that they had
availed of two loan facilities, for an amount of Rs.1.50 crores and
Rs.5.20 crores, from the respondent, and had executed two Loan
Agreements, both dated 30.08.2010, for availing the said facility.
Against the above loan amounts, the respondent had released
Rs.1,43,73,026/- and Rs.5,07,24,129/-, respectively, to the petitioners.
The petitioners were to repay the loan amount in 120 Equal Monthly
Instalments (EMIs). The loan was to be repaid on a floating rate of
interest scheme, that is Floating Reference Rate (in short, FRR) +
Margin. The initial agreed rates were 11% (FRR+2% margin) as far as
the loan of Rs.1.50 crores is concerned, and 14% (FRR+5% margin)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 3 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
as far as the loan of Rs.5.20 crores is concerned. The petitioners were
never given an opportunity by the respondent to discuss or in any
manner alter the clauses of the Agreement, which were one-sided.
Once the loan amount had been disbursed, the respondent, by
misusing its dominant position, increased the rate of interest
periodically. Having no choice, the petitioners continued to pay the
same as and when demanded by the respondent. The petitioners claim
that against the loan amount of Rs.5,07,24,129/-, the petitioners have
already paid an amount of Rs.6,83,16,636/- to the respondent.
However, the respondent is still claiming an outstanding of
Rs.4,76,91,158/- from the petitioners as of 20.08.2018. Similarly,
against the loan amount of Rs.1,43,73,026/-, the petitioners have
already paid an amount of Rs.1,71,44,148/- to the respondent.
However, the respondent is still claiming an outstanding amount of
Rs.1,28,92,882/- from the petitioners as of 20.08.2018. The petitioners
claimed that they have fully repaid the loan amount and that no
outstanding amount is to be paid by them to the respondent.
4. Notice on the above complaint was issued to the respondent by
the learned NCDRC on 30.11.2018. The respondent appeared before
the learned NCDRC on 24.04.2019, however, did not file its response
to the complaint.
5. By an Order dated 02.05.2022, the learned NCDRC allowed an
application, being IA/3472/2022, by which the petitioners had sought
withdrawal of their application filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
By the said Order, the learned NCDRC also admitted the complaint,
and rejected the application of the petitioners, being IA/15601/2019,
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 4 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
by which the petitioners had sought closing of the right of the
respondent to file its reply to the complaint. The said application had
been filed by the petitioners claiming that the maximum period by
which the delay in filing of the reply can be condoned by the learned
NCDRC under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, that is, 45 days of the
receipt of notice by the respondent, had expired.
6. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners challenged the
said order by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, being CM(M) 491/2022 titled Gagan Deep Dugal & Ors. v.
Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. . The said
petition was, however, withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file
an application before the learned NCDRC seeking review of the Order
dated 02.05.2022.
7. In terms of the liberty granted, the petitioners filed the review
application, which stands dismissed by the learned NCDRC by the
Impugned Order dated 06.07.2022.
Whether the respondent is entitled to file its reply to the Complaint?
8. The first challenge by the petitioners against the Impugned
Order is on the ground that the learned NCDRC has erred in granting
time to the respondent to file its reply to the complaint.
9. The petitioners contend that a notice on the complaint had been
issued by the learned NCDRC vide its Order dated 30.11.2018, and
that the respondent had appeared before the learned NCDRC on
24.04.2019, but chose not to file its reply to the complaint. The
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 5 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the period of 45
days from the service of the notice of the complaint on the respondent
had expired, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage Private Limited , (2020) 5 SCC 757, the delay beyond
the period of 45 days of service of notice cannot be condoned by the
learned NCDRC. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent submits that the above complaint had been filed by the
petitioners under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, not only on their own
behalf but also claiming it to be on behalf of other consumers having
the same vested interest. He submits that in terms of Section 12(1)(c)
of the Act, such a complaint is maintainable only after the grant of
permission by the learned District Forum/NCDRC. Till such
permission is granted, there is no complaint and, therefore, the period
of limitation for filing of the reply shall not commence. He submits
that in fact, vide the Order dated 02.05.2022, the application of the
petitioners seeking withdrawal of their application under Section
12(1)(c) of the Act was allowed to be withdrawn by them and the
complaint was admitted as a joint complaint of the petitioners in terms
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprises Limited
v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (2022) 4 SCC 138. He submits that
therefore, the period of limitation for filing of the reply shall
commence only on and from 02.05.2022.
10. He further submits that though there was a delay in filing of the
reply post the Order of 02.05.2022, the same has been later condoned
by the learned NCDRC vide its Order dated 03.02.2023. The said
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 6 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
order has not been challenged by the petitioners. He submits that,
therefore, there is no ground for impugning the Order dated
06.07.2022 passed by the learned NCDRC, by which the application
seeking review of the Order dated 02.05.2022 filed by the petitioners
had been dismissed.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
12. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act reads as under:
“ 12. Manner in which complaint shall be
made.- (1) A complaint in relation to any
goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or
delivered or any service provided or agreed to
be provided may be filed with a District Forum
by-
xxx
(c) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same interest,
with the permission of the District Forum, on
behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers
so interested.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. From the above provision, it is apparent that the complaint can
be filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act only with the permission of
the learned District Forum/NCDRC. Till such permission is granted
by the learned District Forum/NCDRC, there is no complaint before
the learned District Forum/NCDRC in the eyes of law.
14. In Brigade Enterprises Limited (supra), the Supreme Court,
explaining the pari materia provision in the Consumer Protection Act,
2019, held that for filing a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act
(Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) sine qua non
is that all consumers, on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 7 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
complaint is filed, should have the same interest. To establish the
sameness of interest, it is not necessary to establish sameness of the
cause of action. It was held that for allowing an application under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, the pleadings and the reliefs are to be
considered.
15. The consideration of an application under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Act is therefore, not a ministerial act, but a judicial act. Till such
time that such permission is granted by the learned District
Forum/NCDRC, there is no complaint before the learned District
Forum/NCDRC.
16. Much arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners on the distinction between the language of Section
13(1)(a) and Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, by contending that while for
a Complaint under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, time to file the reply
by the opposite party shall run from the admission of the complaint by
the learned District Forum/NCDRC, for a complaint under Section
13(2)(a) of the Act, admission of the Complaint is not necessary and
the time for filing of the reply by the respondent shall commence from
the date of the receipt of notice of the complaint by the respondent.
17. Section 13(1)(a) and Section 13(2)(a) of the Act are reproduced
herein:
“ 13. Procedure on admission of complaint.-
(1) The District Forum shall, on admission of
a complaint, if it relates to any goods,-
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint,
within twenty-one days from the date of its
admission to the opposite party mentioned in
the complaint directing him to give his version
of the case within a period of thirty days or
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 8 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
such extended period not exceeding fifteen
days as may be granted by the District Forum.
xxx
(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints
admitted by it under section 12 relates to
goods in respect of which the procedure
specified in sub-section (1) cannot be
followed, or if the complaint relates to any
services,-
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the
opposite party directing him to give his
version of the case within a period of thirty
days or such extended period not exceeding
fifteen days as may be granted by the District
Forum.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that while
Section 13(1)(a) of the Act uses the term „admitted complaint‟,
Section 13(2)(a) of the Act does not contain the word „admitted‟ in so
far as such complaint relates to services. She submits that, therefore,
admission of a complaint is not necessary for the period of limitation
for filing of the reply to the complaint to commence.
19. She submits that, in the present case, as notice on the complaint
had been issued to the respondent by the learned NCDRC vide its
Order dated 30.11.2018, the period of limitation for filing of the reply
shall commence from the date when the notice was served on the
respondent and not from 02.05.2022 when the Complaint was
admitted.
20. I do not find any merit in the above submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
21. As noted hereinabove, where a complaint has been filed under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, there is no complaint before the learned
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 9 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
District Forum/NCDRC till such time permission is granted by the
learned District Forum/NCDRC to the complainant to file such a
complaint; not only on his/her own behalf but also on behalf of or for
the benefit of all consumers having the same interest.
22. Section 13(2)(a) of the Act refers to „complaints admitted‟. The
said words/phrase applies to a complaint in relation to goods in respect
of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of
the Act cannot be followed, and also to the complaint in relation to
services. Sub-section 2(a) of Section 13 also uses the words “such
complaint”, which is a reference to both nature of complaints.
Therefore, even for purposes of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, the period
of limitation for filing of the reply shall commence only where the
„complaint admitted‟ is referred to the opposite party, directing him to
give his version of the case.
23. In the present case, the complaint filed by the petitioners had
not been admitted till 02.05.2022. As the learned counsel for the
respondent had appeared on the said date before the learned NCDRC
and accepted notice, the period of limitation for filing of the reply
shall commence only from that date and not before. The plea of the
petitioners that the delay that had earlier been caused by the
respondent in filing the reply cannot be condoned, therefore, cannot be
accepted, as there was no delay on part of the respondent in filing its
reply and the period to file the reply had not commenced till the
complaint had been admitted by the learned NCDRC, which occurred
only on 02.05.2022.
24. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 10 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
Denial of Interim Order
25. The second challenge of the petitioners to the Impugned Order
is on the denial of the learned NCDRC to grant an interim relief in
favour of the petitioners against the demand of EMI(s) by the
respondent.
26. As noticed above, the petitioners had availed two loan facilities
from the respondent for construction of their residence in the year
2010, totalling to Rs.6.70 crores (Rs.1.50 crores + Rs.5.20 crores).
The loans were sanctioned on floating rate of interest of 11%
(FRR+2% margin) (for loan amount of Rs.1.50 crores) and 14%
(FRR+5% margin) (for loan amount of Rs.5.20 crores). The loan was
repayable in 120 EMIs. Rs.1,43,73,026/- and Rs.5,07,24,129/- was
disbursed by the respondent to the petitioners against these loan
transactions. The remaining amount was adjusted by the respondent.
The petitioners therefore, knew not only that the full amount of Rs.
1.50 crores and Rs. 5.20 crores had not been disbursed to them under
the loan, but also that there was a varying rate of interest for the two
loans sanctioned on the same date. The petitioners did not protest the
same.
27. The petitioners claim that as of May 2022, against the loan of
Rs.1,43,73,026/-, they have already paid an amount of
Rs.2,47,99,704/- to the respondent, while against the loan of
Rs.5,07,24,129/-, they have paid a sum of Rs.9,88,25,426/- to the
respondent. The petitioners claim that the respondent has been
charging exorbitant interest on the abovementioned loan amounts, and
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 11 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
has been enhancing the rate of interest without informing the
petitioners of the same, or without having any documents singed from
the petitioners in token of their acceptance to such increase, which is
contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (in
short, „RBI‟) and the „Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Housing
Finance Companies‟ issued by the National Housing Bank.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of
the Guidelines, it is mandatory for the Housing Finance Companies
(in short, „HFCs‟) to include all necessary information which affects
the interest of the borrower, in the loan application itself. By means of
the sanction letter or otherwise, the amount of loan sanctioned along
with all terms and conditions including annualised rate of interest,
method of application, EMI structure and prepayment charge should
also be conveyed, and acceptance thereof should be obtained from the
borrowers. HFCs should give notice to the borrower of any change in
the terms and conditions including disbursement schedule, interest
rate, service charges, etc., and such changes can only be made
prospectively. It is further provided that if any change is made to the
disadvantage of the consumer, such consumer may, within 60 days
and without notice, close his/her account or switch it without having
to pay any extra charges or interest. She submits that in terms of the
RBI‟s „Master Circular on Interest Rates on Advances‟, in case of
floating rate of interest, consent of the borrower must be taken before
changing the rate of interest.
29. She submits that the first loan of Rs.1.50 crores was sanctioned
at a floating interest rate of 11% (FRR+2%), while second loan of
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 12 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
Rs.5.20 crores had been sanctioned by the respondent at a floating
interest rate of 14% (FRR+5%). She submits that comparing the rate
of interest notified by the RBI during the relevant period to the rate of
interest charged by the respondent, the latter would be highly
excessive. Even otherwise, if the rate of interest charged by the
respondent from time to time is calculated with reference to the rate
notified by the RBI from time to time, the petitioners have already
overpaid the loan amount along with interest to the respondent.
30. She submits that the learned NCDRC has erred in rejecting the
prayer for interim relief filed by the petitioners, by wrongly relying
upon Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. She submits that
the Consumer Forum derives its power from the Consumer Protection
Act, and is not shackled by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.
She submits that, therefore, Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 cannot be a bar against the grant of an injunction against the
respondent from claiming further amounts from the petitioners during
the pendency of the complaint.
31. She submits that it is the respondent, who, by not filing its reply
within time, has caused the delay in adjudication of the complaint and
therefore, the petitioners should not be burdened with an obligation to
continue to pay the exorbitant amounts charged by the respondent in
contravention of the circulars issued by the RBI as also the National
Housing Bank, during the pendency of the complaint filed by the
petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 13 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
32. She submits that the learned NCDRC has erred in not following
the interim orders passed by its coordinate Benches, granting interim
relief in similar facts and circumstances.
33. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed, being an
abuse of the process of the court. He submits that the petitioners had
earlier filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
being CM(M) 1562/2018 titled Gagan Deep Dugal & Ors. v. Religare
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. , challenging the
Order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned NCDRC on the above
complaint, by which the learned NCDRC had refused to grant an ex
parte interim order in favour of the petitioners. In the said petition, by
an Order dated 11.01.2019, this Court clarified that there is no
restraint qua action, if any, to be taken by the respondent in terms of
The Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in accordance with law.
The court also listed the petition for considering the question of its
maintainability. Later, by an Order dated 31.01.2019, this Court
refused to modify the above Order dated 11.01.2019, however,
clarifying that in case the petitioners deposit two EMIs each qua the
two loan accounts by the end of the said day, the said two loan
accounts would not be declared as „Non Performing Assets‟. While
the above petition was pending adjudication, the petitioners filed a
second petition, being CM(M) 491/2022 titled Gagan Deep Dugal &
Ors. v. Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. ,
challenging the Order dated 02.05.2022 also insofar as it had refused
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 14 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
to grant an interim relief in favour of the petitioners. In the said
petition, by an Order dated 25.05.2022, the court called upon the
petitioners to explain how they are maintaining that they have
overpaid the respondent. Instead of explaining the same, the
petitioners, on 30.05.2022, withdrew the said petition seeking liberty
to file a review petition before the learned NCDRC. The said review
having been dismissed by the learned NCDRC vide its Impugned
Order dated 06.07.2022, the petitioners have now filed the present
petition.
34. He submits that, therefore, for the same relief, the petitioners
have filed multiple petitions having failed to obtain any interim
protection in the earlier petitions. He submits that the petitioners
cannot maintain such repeated petitions for the same relief. He places
reliance on the judgements of this Court in Vidur Impex and Traders
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar Khanna & Ors. 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 8925; Jiya Rani v. Narinder Kumar Dhingra & Ors.
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12680; Shiju Jacob Varghese & Anr. v.
Tower Vision Ltd. & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5728, of the High
Court of Bombay in SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kara Mara
Shipping Co. Ltd. & Ors. 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 495, and of the
High Court of Rajasthan in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji v.
Kanhaiyalal & Ors. 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 530.
35. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioners have a
remedy in form of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 23 of
the Act and, therefore, a petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable. In support, he places
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 15 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524; Cicily
Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 SCC 524; Phoenix Arc Pvt.
Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharti Vidya Mandir (2022) 5 SCC 345; Mohamed
Ali v. V. Jaya & Ors. (2022) 10 SCC 477; and an order of the
Supreme Court dated 12.03.2021 in SLP(C) 4127 of 2021 titled
Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu ICU v. Manoj
Upadhyay & Ors.
36. On merits, he submits that due notice of the rate of interest had
been given to the petitioners, and the amounts charged from the
petitioners are in accordance with the contract between the parties. He
submits that the petitioners, therefore, have not made out any case for
grant of an interim relief. He submits that the Court should not grant
interim orders in financial matters. He relies upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore
& Anr. v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85; Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v.
Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 44; and,
Syndicate Bank v. R Veeranna & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 15, in support of
his submission.
37. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
38. In Cicily Kallarackal (supra), the Supreme Court has cautioned
that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders
passed by the Consumer Forum/NCDRC, as a statutory appeal is
provided and lies to the Supreme Court under Section 23 of the Act.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 16 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
The above caution was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mehra Bal
Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu ICU (supra). While a petition
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India might be
maintainable against an order passed by the learned NCDRC, the High
Court would be guided by the general principles of exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction under the above provisions, including where
there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner and
would normally refuse to entertain such a petition.
39. In the present case also, as far as the prayer for interim relief is
concerned, the petitioners have been unable to show any jurisdictional
error on part of the learned NCDRC in refusing the interim relief to
the petitioners. The petitioners have also not been able to show why it
chose not to invoke the appropriate remedy in form of an appeal to the
Supreme Court instead of approaching this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
40. In any case, I do not find any merit in the present petition on the
following grounds, which are explained hereinbelow:
Multiple Petitions
41. As has rightly been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent, the petitioners have been filing repeated petitions seeking
similar relief from this Court. It had first challenged the Order dated
30.11.2018, by which the learned NCDRC had refused to grant
interim relief to the petitioners. The said petition was withdrawn by
the petitioners only after the filing of the present petition. The
petitioners then filed another petition before this Court, challenging
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 17 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
the Order dated 02.05.2022 of the learned NCDRC. The said petition
was also withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file a review
application before the learned NCDRC. The present petition has now
been filed challenging the Order dated 06.07.2022, passed in the
review application filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court.
Therefore, the petitioners are making multiple attempts to obtain
interim orders by filing petitions one after another, and when the
Court refuses to grant any interim protection to them, they withdraw
the same to start a new round. This may, in fact, amount to an abuse of
the process of the court.
On Merits
42. Even otherwise, I find no merit in the present petition. The
petitioners have entered into the loan transactions by executing the
loan agreements way back in 2010. The loan agreements are clear on
the liability imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim
to be absolved of the same on a vague plea that they were unable to
negotiate proper terms of the agreement, or were unable to appreciate
the consequences thereof.
43. The petitioners also do not deny that they have been issued
communications by the respondent informing them of the change in
the rate of interests, which have been stipulated as floating rate of
interest in the agreements. The petitioners, at that appropriate time, did
not challenge such communications. Whether the rate of interest
charged by the respondent from the petitioners is in accordance with
the agreement, would be an issue to be determined by the learned
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 18 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19
NCDRC. For the present, in my view, the petitioners have been unable
to make out any case for grant of an interim relief. In case it is
eventually found that the petitioners have overpaid the respondent, the
respondent would be under an obligation to return the excess amount
received along with interest to the petitioners. However, presently, the
petitioners have not been able to meet the trinity test for grant of an
interim protection in their favour.
Conclusion
44. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. The
same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications also stand
disposed of as infructuous.
45. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 31, 2024/ ns/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 788/2022 Page 19 of 19
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:01.08.2024
16:49:19