Bombay High Court
PLATINUM AASHIANA LLPversusVIJAY RAGHUNATH CHALKE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the Commission must decide its pecuniary jurisdiction at the earliest stage and cannot defer it to the final adjudication, quashing the order that postponed the jurisdictional hearing.
Summary
Platinum Aashiana LLP filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, which had deferred hearing and decision on an application questioning the Commission’s pecuniary jurisdiction until the final adjudication of the complaint. The petition argued that such deferment would render the proceedings futile if the Commission later found it lacked jurisdiction. The High Court held that jurisdictional questions must be decided at the earliest stage, not postponed to the final hearing, to avoid unnecessary delay and futility. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order that deferred the jurisdictional decision and directed the Commission to hear and decide the application on pecuniary jurisdiction before proceeding with the complaint. The parties were ordered to appear before the Commission on a specified date, and the Court clarified it had not entered the merits of the underlying dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can defer determination of its pecuniary jurisdiction to the stage of final adjudication of the complaint.
- Whether such deferment renders the proceedings futile and unjustifiably delays justice.
Subjects
- Consumer Protection Act
- pecuniary jurisdiction
- District Consumer Redressal Commission
- writ petition
- jurisdictional deferment
- judicial review
Judgment
29-WP10690-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 OF 2026
Platinum Aashiana LLP ...Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Raghunath Chalke and Ors …Respondents
Mr. Manish Gala, a/w Alpa Gala, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nilesh Parte, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Arun Panickar, a/w Vinay Nair and Aayush Yadav, for
Respondent No.2.
Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondent-
SANTOSH
State.
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2026
Date: 2026.09.02
10:02:30 +0530
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7 th
August, 2026, whereby the Additional District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, has
deferred the hearing and decision on an application dated 6 th
October, 2025, questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
District Commission to entertain, try and decide the complaint
to the stage of final adjudication.
3. The issue of jurisdiction could not have been relegated to
the stage of final adjudication as in the event the Commission
1/3
29-WP10690-2026.DOC
ultimately finds that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the entire
exercise would be rendered futile. It would have been in the
fitness of things for the Commission to decide the issue of
pecuniary jurisdiction in the first instance and then depending
on the outcome of the said decision, proceed with the
complaint.
4. A grievance was made on behalf of the respondents that,
the hearing of the complaint would be unjustifiably delayed if
the Commission were to decide the issue of its jurisdiction.
5. The grievance of the respondent can be addressed by
directing the Commission to take up the application dated 6 th
October, 2025 for hearing and final disposal on 7 th September,
2026 and decide the same within a time frame.
6. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order to the extent the Commission has
deferred the decision on its pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint to the final adjudication of the
complaint stands quashed and set aside.
2/3
29-WP10690-2026.DOC
(iii) The Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission,
Mumbai Suburban, is requested to hear and decide the
application dated 6th October, 2025 before finally deciding
the complaint.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the Commission on 7 th
September, 2026.
(v) The Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission,
Mumbai Suburban, is requested to pass an order in
accordance with the law on the aspect of pecuniary
jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible and, preferably,
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
(vi) No separate notice need be issued to any party nor any
party shall seek an adjournment before the District
Commission for the purpose of hearing of the application
dated 6th October, 2026.
(vii) It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the
merits of the matter, including the challenge to the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, and all
contentions of all the parties are kept open for
consideration of the District Commission.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…