Writ Petition No. 10998 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10998 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: MS. VEENA PATIL MANAGING DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS M/S. VEENA PATIL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, NEELAKANTH CORPORATE PARK KIROL ROAD, VIDAVIHAR WEST MUMBAI – 400 086.
Facts
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 56/151, FIRST FLOOR, SHARADA PLAZA 9TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHRADDHA SURVE.
Legal Reasoning
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 3. The petitioner would reiterate the averments made in the petition. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On 09.11.2023, the respondent - complainant completes the tour after having accepted the fact that the South Korean Embassy has rejected the Visa. Six months thereafter, registers a consumer dispute on 16.05.2024, seeking refund of money and damages, in consumer case No.187/2024. The petitioner enters appearance and files three applications, they are as follows: “a. IA No.1 of 2024 praying to dismiss the Consumer Case on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the terms and conditions mutually agreed by both parties had conferred jurisdiction on the courts in Mumbai. b. IA No.2 of 2024 praying to dismiss the Consumer Case for non-joinder of the Respondent’s wife, as she is a necessary party. c. IA No.3 of 2024 for non-joinder of the South Korean Embassy as a necessary party, since it is the South Korean Embassy office which had rejected the VISA and denied the Respondent entry to South Korea, and not the Petitioner. 4. The first application is filed seeking to dismiss the consumer complaint as both the parties had agreed upon the terms and conditions at Mumbai. Second application was non- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 joinder of necessary party and the third application was also for non-joinder of South Korean Embassy for rejecting the Visa. 5. The forum dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2024, which was concerning territorial jurisdiction and other two applications were also disposed, reserving liberty to file at the later point in time. On completion of the pleadings and filing of evidence, the petitioner again files a memo before the forum, seeking to consider I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, which were already disposed. The memo is rejected. 6. In the considered view of this Court, the Forum ought to have taken up I.A.No.1/2024 as it concerned territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain a consumer complaint. The question of territorial jurisdiction would cut at the root of the matter. Therefore, the Forum has fallen in error in rejecting applications - I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024. Since the issue concerns the petitioner and the Forum, with regard to the jurisdiction issue and consideration of the applications, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the Forum to consider the application in I.A.No.1/2024 afresh and other - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 applications - I.A.Nos.2 and 3, if the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided in accordance with law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following
Arguments
(BY SRI K.S.PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. KRISHNAN KUTTY FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE: MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 2024, 3RD BLOCK Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 JANAPRIYA APARTMENTS, ALLALSANDRA G.K.V.K.P.O., BENGALURU – 560 065. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2024 IN COMPLAINT NO.187/24 PASSED BY THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND DECIDE THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS NOS.1, 2 AND 3 OF 2024 AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES, PRIOR TO HEARING THE CONSUMER CASE ON MERITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06.08.2024 passed in consumer complaint No.187/2024, by the Bengaluru Rural and Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the forum’ for short’ and a consequence thereof, seeks a direction to the forum to adjudicate upon and decide the interlocutory applications filed in I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15052 WP No. 10998 of 2025 2. The petitioner is the respondent before the forum. The respondent, complainant before the forum booked a tour in a group offered by the present petitioner to Korea and Taiwan, on 21.09.2023. On 31.10.2023, the South Korean Embassy rejected the visa of the petitioner. On such rejection, the petitioner proceeded to Taiwan which was also a part of the tour. On 09.11.2023, the complainant completes the tour and comes back. After about 6 months, registers a consumer case in consumer case No.187/2024 seeking refund of the South Korean tour, which was a portion of the tour plan. On issuance of the notice, the petitioner appeared and filed three interlocutory applications. The first application was seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the forum, the second and third applications are seeking non-joinder of necessary parties. The forum dismisses the interlocutory application in I.A.No.1/2024, which was concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. The other two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are deferred on the score that they would be considered along with the main matter. It is this action of the forum that has driven the
Decision
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 06.08.2024, passed by the Bengaluru Rural and Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in consumer complaint No.187/2024, stands quashed. c. The Forum is directed to consider all the applications I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. d. It is open to the Forum to regulate its procedure, thereafter. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 CT:SS