- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23858 WP No. 5105 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 5105 OF 2024 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: M/S. PARASMANI MARBLES PVT LTD. 82/2B-1A, MELUMALAI VILLAGE, SAMALATHAM P.O, NH -7, SHOOLAGIRI TALUK, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU - 635 117. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. PRADEEP …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR. G. NAHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SWAMY RAVI S/O H.N.RAVI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT A-11-18, PLATINUM APARTMENTS, NO.2 HMT WATCH FACTORY ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. 2. SMT. BHANU SWAMY W/O SRI. SWAMY RAVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT A-11-18, PLATINUM APARTMENTS, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23858 WP No. 5105 of 2024 NO.2 HMT WATCH FACTORY ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU IN COMPLAINT NO. 92/2022 (URBAN) VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the validity and correctness of order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 05.01.2024 in complaint No.92/2022 whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party in the said proceedings was directed to pay certain amounts. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23858 WP No. 5105 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioner is that the order ought to be interfered even in exercise of writ jurisdiction as the claim made and the amount awarded is exorbitant and does not have any nexus to the legal grievance of the petitioner. Attention is drawn to the table at Page 2 of the Synopsis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of dispute technically was only Rs.6,20,717/- while all other amounts have been added resulting in the claim of Rs.36,87,552/- which has no nexus to the deficiency as alleged. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that substantive remedy is available under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeal before the State Forum. 5. It is submitted all contentions could be raised in such proceedings and that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ would be maintainable cannot be brushed aside while however observing that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23858 WP No. 5105 of 2024 when the substantive remedy is available, question of invoking writ jurisdiction may not be appropriate. 6. In light of section 41, the petitioner is relegated to avail of the substantive remedy as available under the statute. The time spent before this court may be taken note of appropriately if pleaded for the purpose of calculation at limitation before the State Forum. 7. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. The respondents are not to take precipitative steps to enforce the order of the District Forum for a period of 4 weeks from today. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would make an application for relaxation of condition regarding deposit. 9. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps as regards all aspects in the substantive remedy. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not signed by all the members. It is submitted that it is a jurisdictional point. It is made clear - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23858 WP No. 5105 of 2024 that such point is also open for the petitioner to be challenged in the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45