NEENA ANEJA Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES
LAWS(SC)-2021-3-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 16,2021

Neena Aneja Appellant
VERSUS
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DR.DHANANIAVA Y CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) Index A. Background B. Submissions B.1. Submissions of the appellants B.2. Submissions of the respondent C. Position of law on change of forum: An analysis of precedent C.1. Venugopala Reddiar (1943- Federal Court 3 judges) C.2. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954- Supreme Court 4 judges) C.3. Garikapati (1957- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.4. Mohd. Idris (1965- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.5. Manujendra Dutt (1966- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.6. New India Assurance (1975- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.7. Maria Cristina (1978- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.8. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.9. Sudhir G Angur (2005- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.10. Ramesh Kumar Soni (2013- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.11. Dhadi Sahu (1992- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.12. Ambalal Sarabhai (2001- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.13. HP State Electricity (2013- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.14. Videocon International (2015- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.15. SEBI v. Classic Credit (2018- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.16. Swapna Mohanty (2018- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.17. Om Prakash Agarwal (2018- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.18. Delhi High Court Bar Association (1993- Delhi HC-DB) C.19. Mahendra Jain (2008- Bombay HC-DB) C.20. Vallabhaneni (2004- Andhra Pradesh HC- 5 judges) C.21. Gobardhan Lal Soneja (1991-Patna HC-FB) C.22. Y.B. Ramesh (2010-Karnataka HC-SJ) C.23. Conclusion on the position of law D. Legislative Scheme of the jurisdictional provisions E. Legislative intendment underlying Section 107 of the Act of 2019 F. Summation A Background 1. On being enacted by Parliament, the Consumer Protection Act 2019[1] was published in the Gazette of India on 9 August 2019[2]. By S.O. 2351 (E) dated 15 July 2020, the material provisions of the Act of 2019 were notified to come into force on 20 July 2020. By S.O. 2421 (E) dated 23 July 2020 several other provisions were brought into force, with effect from 24 July 2020. The appellants instituted a consumer case[3] before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[4] on 18 June 2020. The consumer case was instituted under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation, the Consumer Protection Act 1986[5]. The NCDRC by its order dated 30 July 2020 dismissed the consumer case on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act of 2019, its pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from rupees one crore to rupees ten crores. The appellants' review petition was also dismissed by the NCDRC on 5 October 2020. In the present case, the claim of Rs. 2.19 crores is below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC. [1] "Act of 2019" [2] The Act was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, No. 54 dated 9 August 2019 [3] Consumer Case no. 566 of 2020 (NCDRC) [4] "NCDRC" [5] "Act of 1986"
(2.) The complainants in the consumer case are in appeal.
(3.) The issue which arises in the appeals is whether a complaint which was filed and registered under the Act of 1986, before the new Act of 2019 came into force, has to be entertained under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation. In anticipation of the enforcement of the Act of 2019, an administrative notice was issued by the NCDRC on 17 July 2020 to allow the functioning of its registry for fresh filings on 18 July 2020, since the new law was to come into force on 20 July 2020. The appellants are also aggrieved by the fact that contrary to the position taken in its case, other Benches of the NCDRC have admitted complaints instituted before 20 July 2020. This grievance apart, the issue which arises in the appeals would turn upon a construction of Section 107 of the Act of 2019, among other provisions of the new legislation, and its interplay with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897[6]. The analysis of the Court, despite the new legislation, will not proceed on a clean slate for there is precedent which holds the field. That both sides rely upon the line of precedent in the unfolding of their cases makes the interpretational task intricate. Our task will be to bring a solution that has a sense of cohesion, while harmonizing precedential learning with justice. [6] "General Clauses Act" ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.