High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 Extends to NCDRC Orders Where Cause of Action Arises Territorially

The petitioners (DBS Bank) advanced a home loan to Valli Sarguru, which was covered by insurance from Max Life Insurance (Respondent 4).

Upon the borrower's death, her legal heirs (Respondents 2 and 3) sought to adjust the insurance sum against the loan but the bank denied the claim.

The SCDRC found a deficiency in service and ordered the bank to adjust the assured sums (~₹36.5 Lakhs) and pay compensation.

The petitioners remained ex-parte during the SCDRC inquiry.

In the appeal to the NCDRC, the petitioners' counsel conceded to comply with the SCDRC order subject to production of a succession certificate.

The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the NCDRC order before the Delhi High Court, which granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court due to the cause of action arising in Puducherry.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order of the NCDRC in the Madras High Court when the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction.

2. Whether the petitioners can challenge an order of the NCDRC when their counsel had conceded to comply with the lower forum's decree during the appellate proceedings.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its territory, even if the seat of the authority is outside.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain (2023) clarified that orders of the National Commission (other than original jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(a)(i) & (ii)) are challengeable via writ petitions under Article 226 or 227 before the jurisdictional High Court.

While Article 227 limits supervisory power to courts within the High Court's territory, Article 226(2) expands jurisdiction based on the 'cause of action'.

The petitioners were negligent by remaining ex-parte before the SCDRC despite multiple adjournments.

The petitioners' counsel had expressly conceded to the decree before the NCDRC.

The attempt to introduce new evidence regarding the deceased's alleged suppression of a pre-existing ailment was rejected as such defenses should have been raised before the lower consumer forums.

The special extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to bypass a concession made by counsel during statutory appellate proceedings.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming that petitioners are bound by the concession made before the NCDRC and cannot re-litigate factual defenses not pursued in appropriate forums.