" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10825-DB WP No. 22736 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.22736 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: IDEB BUILDCON (P) LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: DELTA BLOCK 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR SIGMA SOFT-TECH PARK, NO.7 WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD VARTHUR KODI BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. N. M. UTHAPPA …PETITIONER (BY SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUMIT GROVER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10825-DB WP No. 22736 of 2025 S/O. CHARANJIT LAL GROVER 2. ANUBHA GROVER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. SUMIT GROVER BOTH OF THEM RESIDING AT X303 PURVA FAIRMONT, 24TH MAIN SECTOR 2, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/04/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN CC NO.1185/2015 (AT ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE CONSUMER COMPLAINT FILED IN C.C.NO.1185/2015 (AT ANNEXURE-R) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10825-DB WP No. 22736 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘Commission’), in Consumer Complaint No.1185 of 2015 filed by the respondents/complainants. 2. The petitioner - Company had raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the consumer complaint. However, in view of the order dated 17.09.2015, whereby the liberty was granted to the respondents/complainants to withdraw the complaint and file a fresh complaint, the Commission has condoned the delay. 3. We are of the view that if a fresh complaint has been filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Commission for filing the fresh complaint, the limitation would begin from the date of the order granting liberty to file a fresh complaint. 4. So far as the second objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the Commission has considered the judgment in CC No.97/2016 – Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited dated 07.10.2016 Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10825-DB WP No. 22736 of 2025 and held that the compensation claimed by a consumer would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We do not find that such an order requires an interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India. 5. The impugned order passed by the Commission is neither beyond its jurisdiction nor legally untenable. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Commission in passing the impugned order. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending application does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 Printed from counselvise.com "