Anantha Biotechnologies, Rep. By Its Proprietor v. B. Venkata Ramanamma, Died By Lrs. W/O Late Janaki Ramudu & ORS.

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th October, 2024 + CM(M) 1990/2023 & CM APPL. 62554/2023 ANANTHA BIOTECHNOLOGIES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Akshay Mann, Mr. Suresh Kumar Potturi and Mr.

Chirag Mittal, Advocates versus B. VENKATA RAMANAMMA, DIED BY LRS. W/O LATE JANAKI RAMUDU & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 30.08.2023 in Revision Petition No. 480/2023 passed by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short „NCDRC‟).

2.

The above matter was filed before NCDRC impugning order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in Appeal No. 900/2018.

3.

Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in view of judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter, Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, the CM(M) 1990/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL 14:46:10

petitioner should rather approach the concerned jurisdictional High Court. 4.

In Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have been invoked. 5.

Moreover, this Court has already vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed in General Manager, Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Rohit Malhotra: (2024) SCC OnLine Del 6415 observed that in view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), any such petitioner should go to the "jurisdictional High Court".

6.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction. All the rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

7.

Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing appropriate petition.

8.

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE OCTOBER 16, 2024/dr CM(M) 1990/2023 2 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL 14:46:10