{"id":265358,"date":"2022-04-12T14:00:25","date_gmt":"2022-04-12T08:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=265358"},"modified":"2022-05-25T13:50:43","modified_gmt":"2022-05-25T08:20:43","slug":"constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Bombay High Court: <\/strong>Stating that, the Courts cannot examine the constitutional validity if a situation created by impugned legislation is irremediable, the Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., addressed a matter wherein the constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been challenged.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Factual Matrix<\/span><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">District Consumer Forum had passed an order signed by only two Members without the President being party to it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As per the said order, the petitioner-developers were directed to execute the Sale Deed and deliver possession of the said plot.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Petitioners, instead of availing the statutory remedy under the provisions of the said Act, filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the judgment mainly on the ground that the exercise of powers by the District Consumer Forum without the President being its party is illegal.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Section 29A of the Act, which permits the District Forum to pass judgment without the President, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.<\/span><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court stated that the Supreme Court had repeatedly stated that Constitutional Courts can strike down legislative enactments only on two grounds:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">i) The legislator is not competent to make the law;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">ii) that such statute or provision takes away or breaches any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #333399;\">Well Settled Law<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Any enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that Court thinks it is unjustified. The Court cannot pass any judgment on the wisdom of the Parliament and Legislators consisting of representatives of the people, who are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\">\u201c\u2026presumption of constitutionality is always in favour of Legislation only if the contrary is shown. The burden of establishing unconstitutionality is always on a person who challenges its vagaries.\u201d<\/span><strong style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\">\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Bench opined that the language of Section 29A of the Act is intended to provide for a situation where a President of State Commission or District Forum is non-functional, either having not been appointed in time or is on leave due to reasons beyond his control.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\">The scheme of appointment and adjudication of consumer disputes is laid down under the Act to make the District Forum or State Commission continuously functional, allowing the Members in the absence of the President to function in a situation beyond the control of the Members of the Forum.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court expressed that, the mere absence of the President for reasons beyond control alone is not sufficient for striking down Section 29A of the Act as unconstitutional, particularly when such provision has been made to ender the District Forum of State Commission functional in the absence of the President.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Therefore, it was held that there was no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [Aparna Abhitabh Chatterjee v. Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/xkcZ51Y1\"><b>2022 SCC OnLine Bom 760<\/b><\/a>, decided on 24-3-2022]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Shri S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Shri Nandesh Deshpande, ASGI for respondent no. 1.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Shri M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent no. 2\/State.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Shri H. R. Gadhia, Advocate for respondent no. 4.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court: Stating that, the Courts cannot examine the constitutional validity if a situation created by impugned legislation is irremediable, the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":261881,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[18321,32468,49148,29863],"class_list":["post-265358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-consumer-protection-act","tag-district-forum","tag-section-29a-of-the-consumer-protection-act","tag-state-commission"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-12T08:30:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-25T08:20:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/\",\"name\":\"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-12T08:30:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-25T08:20:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides | SCC Times","description":"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides","og_description":"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-04-12T08:30:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-05-25T08:20:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/","name":"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2022-04-12T08:30:25+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-25T08:20:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Constitutional Validity of Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":888,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/12\/constitutional-validity-of-section-29a-of-consumer-protection-act-district-forum-state-commision-president\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constitutional Validity of S. 29A of Consumer Protection Act | Whether absence of President of State Commission or District Forum for reasons beyond control is sufficient for striking down S. 29A as unconstitutional? Bom HC decides"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":265788,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/22\/stories-relating-to-a-man-allegedly-cheating-woman-by-hiding-his-homosexuality-to-relationship-of-a-lawyer-client\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":0},"title":"Devika Sharma in Ep. 57 of SCC Online Weekly Rewind brings stories relating to a Man allegedly cheating woman by hiding his homosexuality to Relationship of a Lawyer-Client &#038; more","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 Top Story \u00a0Thane Court Man allegedly cheats a woman by suppressing material fact of him being homosexual: Will Thane Court grant him bail? Read Noting the fact that a man suppressed the material fact of his private life before marriage i.e., about him being a homosexual, Rajesh S. Gupta,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/WR_Devika.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/WR_Devika.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/WR_Devika.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/WR_Devika.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/WR_Devika.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":135331,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/05\/consumer-protection-act-1986-does-not-violate-the-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":1},"title":"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not violate the Constitution","author":"Saba","date":"June 5, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Calcutta: In a recent judgment, Single Judge Bench of Debangsu Basak, J. decided upon the constitutional status of Section 13(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 13(3) of the Act states that, \"No proceedings complying with the procedure\u00a0laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308544,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/06\/proceedings-before-dcdrc-decided-presence-of-president-consumer-complaint-scdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":2},"title":"Proceedings before DCDRC must be mandatorily decided in presence of its President and not just the Members: SCDRC","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttarakhand SCDRC sets aside the impugned order of DCDRC passed in a consumer complaint as its President was not part of the proceedings, thereby disregarding the mandate in S. 36 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"proceedings before dcdrc President","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/proceedings-before-dcdrc-President.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/proceedings-before-dcdrc-President.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/proceedings-before-dcdrc-President.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/proceedings-before-dcdrc-President.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/25\/ap-hc-application-for-extension-of-passing-arbitral-award-filed-only-before-court-u-s-21e-of-ac-act-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":3},"title":"Application for extending mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing Award to be filed only before \u2018Court\u2019 as defined u\/s 2(1)(e) of A&amp;C Act: Andhra Pradesh HC","author":"Arushi","date":"May 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf the intention of the Parliament were to vest the power of extending the mandate of an Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in High Court as envisaged under Section 11, then nothing could have prevented it from providing so.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":176373,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/15\/centre-submit-comprehensive-status-report-compliance-consumer-protection-act-1986\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":4},"title":"Centre to submit comprehensive status report on compliance of Consumer Protection Act, 1986","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 15, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: After a 3-member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Arijit Pasayat, filed it\u2019s report on the facilitating infrastructural improvements in National\/State Consumer Fora, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ asked the Central Government to file a comprehensive\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214871,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/20\/hp-scdrc-no-bar-under-consumer-protection-act-prohibiting-filing-of-consumer-complaint-in-the-presence-of-an-alternative-remedy\/","url_meta":{"origin":265358,"position":5},"title":"HP SCDRC | No bar under Consumer Protection Act prohibiting filing of consumer complaint in the presence of an alternative remedy","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla: Coram of Justice P.S. Rana (President), Vijay Pal Khachi (Member) and Sunita Sharma (Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd. against the order of the District Forum whereby Bharti Airtel was directed to pay punitive compensation to one of its\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265358\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/261881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}