- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 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. 10999 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: M/S. VEENA WORLD 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 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. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S.PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: VISHALA HUSBAND’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL – 561 203. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND DECIDE THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2024 AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES, PRIOR TO HEARING CONSUMER CASE NO. 73 OF 2024 ON MERITS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Bengaluru Rural and Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for short’), to consider the interlocutory applications – I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024, filed by the petitioner in Consumer Case No.73/2024. 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 South Korea 12.10.2023 to 19.10.2023. The VISA of the respondent – - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 of 2025 complainant was granted by the South Korean Consulate only on 16.10.2023, by which time, the tour plan had already commenced and therefore, the permit or the grant of VISA could not be availed by the respondent. The petitioner though offered that the amount paid by the respondent would be apportioned towards the future tour, notwithstanding the offer of the petitioner, the respondent after about 6 months, registers a consumer case in consumer case No.73/2024 seeking refund of the South Korean tour. On issuance of the notice, the petitioner appeared and filed two interlocutory applications. The first application was seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and the second application is seeking non-joinder of necessary parties. Non-consideration of the applications and proceeding the matter by recording the evidence by the Forum, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 3. The petitioner would reiterate the averments made in the petition. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The tour plan was between 12.10.2023 and 19.10.2023, but the grant of VISA of the respondent was on 16.10.2023, which was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 of 2025 of no avail to the respondent – complainant as the scheduled tour plan had already commenced. Six months thereafter, the respondent - complainant registers a consumer dispute on 26.02.2024, seeking refund of money and damages, in consumer case No.73/2024. The petitioner enters appearance and files two 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 for non-joinder of the South Korean Embassy as a necessary party, since it is the South Korean Embassy office who 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 and the second application was for non-joinder of South Korean Embassy for granting VISA on 16.10.2023. 5. The Forum without hearing and deciding on the aforesaid applications has proceeded with the matter by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 of 2025 recording the evidence, which is contrary to law. When the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised, in the considered view of this Court, the Forum ought to have taken up I.A.No.1/2024 by the Forum before recording the evidence or proceeding with the matter. The question of territorial jurisdiction would cut at the root of the matter. Therefore, the Forum has fallen in error in not considering the applications - I.A.Nos.1 and 2 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 applications in I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. Mandamus issues to the Bengaluru Rural and Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, to consider the applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024, filed in consumer complaint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15053 WP No. 10999 of 2025 No.73/2024, in accordance with law and then proceed with the merits of the matter. c. It is open to the Forum to regulate its procedure, thereafter. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 CT:SS