NCDRC_If a petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required

 

NCDRC_If a petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required

11.     The argument made by learned senior Counsel, in the hearing on admission on 01.12.2020, that in “similar” cases of other traders notice has been issued by co-ordinate benches of this Commission, is not tenable.

 

A revision petition merits issuance of notice if a prima facie case is made out on merit. If a revision petition is totally bereft of merit, no notice is required, it can (and albeit should) be dismissed on admission, with reasons recorded.

 

Mere issuance of notice by a co-ordinate bench in “similar” cases of other traders is not a binding precedent.

 

For a precedent to be binding, one, the issue in question has to be duly examined, and, two, the reasons for arriving at the conclusion arrived at have to be duly recorded. Without examination or reasons recorded on the issue in question, an order does not become a binding precedent; only if an issue is examined and decided with a reasoned order, it becomes a binding precedent. (And then, too, for further reasons recorded subsequently, the precedent could be reviewed or referred to a larger bench etc. as per the new facts and wiser counsel and as per the law.)

 

In the context of the doctrine of binding precedent, there is a material difference between interim / interlocutory Orders and final Orders / Judgments. The daily orders referred to by the learned senior Counsel are not final Orders / Judgments.  

 

Another argument made that in a “similar” case of a trader relating to charging of additional cost for carry bags, the Competition Appellate Tribunal, vide its Order dated 07.07.2005, in Appeal No. 64 of 2015, Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa vs. Lifestyle International Private Limited, dismissed the Appeal preferred against the refusal of the Competition Commission of India to order an investigation into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the concerned trader, is also not tenable

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 975 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 18/05/2020 in Appeal No. 238/2019 of the State Commission Chandigarh)

 

 

1. BIG BAZAAR (FUTURE RETAIL LTD.)
Versus
1. ASHOK KUMAR

 

 Dated : 22 Dec 2020