REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9317 OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18658 of 2018)

M/S. SHIUR SAKHAR KARKHANA PVT. LTD. … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA … Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The judgment dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Aurangabad Bench

of the High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 2104 of 2017, entertaining

the said writ petition against the order placing the respondent

ex parte, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Mumbai Circuit Bench at Aurangabad

(hereinafter, “the State Commission”), and setting aside the said

order of the State Commission, has been called into question in

this appeal.

The records reveal that the respondent-Bank was placed

ex parte before the State Commission for failing to appear before

it despite service of notice. Subsequently, an application was

filed by the respondent-Bank to set aside the order placing it ex

parte, which came to be dismissed by the State Commission on the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2019.12.14

ground that it does not have jurisdiction to recall its own prior
12:54:59 IST
Reason:

order.

As against this order, the respondent herein approached the

 2

High Court by filing a writ petition. Entertaining the same, the

High Court passed the impugned order and set aside the order of the

State Commission placing the respondent ex parte. A contention was

raised before the High Court by the appellant herein that an

alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the respondent

in the form of an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission (hereinafter, “the National Commission”) as

provided under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(hereinafter, “the Act”).

However, the High Court concluded that an appeal may not lie

before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Act and

consequently there was no alternative remedy available to the

respondent. Based on this, the High Court entertained the said writ

petition and allowed the same by the impugned order.

In view of the above, the only question to be decided in this

appeal by this Court is whether the National Commission has

jurisdiction to set aside an order of the State Commission placing

a party ex parte. In this context, it is relevant to note Section

21 of the Act, which reads as under :-

“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.—

Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services

and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one
crore; and
 3

(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;

and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in

any consuumer dispute which is pending before or has been
decided by any State Commission where it appears to the
National Commission that such State Commission has
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has
failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted
in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity.”

In our considered opinion, a plain reading of Section 21(a)

(ii) read with Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the

National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against

the orders passed by the State Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) does

not state that appeals cannot be entertained against orders that

have been passed ex parte. The plain and simple meaning of the said

provision is that appeals will be entertained by the National

Commission against any order passed by the State Commission. The

word “orders” as used in Section 21(a)(ii) means and includes “any

orders”. Thus, an order of the State Commission placing a

particular party ex parte can also be questioned before the

National Commission.

In light of this, in our considered opinion, the High Court

could have avoided to entertain the writ petition against the order

of the State Commission, in view of the availability of an

alternative and efficacious remedy to the respondent.

We may note at this juncture that the presence of an

alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed

 4

limitation rather than that of law. However, entertaining a writ

petition in such a case may be proper in certain circumstances, for

instance when an order has been passed in total violation of the

principles of natural justice, or has been passed invoking repealed

provisions (see CIT v. Chhabil Dass Aggarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603).

In the instant case, no such circumstance has been invoked.

Thus, propriety required the respondent-Bank to have approached the

National Commission in view of the availability of an alternative

remedy under a specific legislation.

Thus, we propose to set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Ordered accordingly. It is open for the respondent herein to file

an appeal before the National Commission within four weeks from

this day. In case such appeal is filed within four weeks, the

question of limitation shall not be raised by the appellant or by

the National Commission, and such appeal shall be decided on its

own merits.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no

order as to costs.

…………………………………………………………………………………,J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

…………………………………………………………………………………,J.
(R. Subhash Reddy)
New Delhi;
December 04, 2019
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18658/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-05-2018

in WP No. 2104/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay At Aurangabad)

M/S. SHIUR SAKHAR KARKHANA PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.97279/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING

C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 04-12-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, AOR

Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Adv.
Mr. Nilanjani Tandon, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable order. There shall be no order as to costs.

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)