NCDRC dismissed a Consumer Case, instituted under Act of 1986 on 18.06.2020, on the ground, after enforcement of Act of 2019, pecuniary jurisdiction of NCDRC has been enhanced from Rupees One Crore to Rupees Ten Crores. The decision has been set aside.

_____

A change in forum lies in the realm of procedure. Accordingly, in compliance with tenets of statutory interpretation applicable to procedural law, amendments on matters of procedure are retrospective, unless a contrary intention emerges from the statute. There is no express language indicating, all pending cases would stand transferred to fora created by Act of 2019 by applying its newly prescribed pecuniary limits. In deducing whether there is a contrary intent, legislative scheme and procedural history may provide a relevant insight. One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused, if cases which have been already instituted before NCDRC were required to be transferred to SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by Act of 2019. It would be difficult to attribute to Parliament, whose purpose in enacting Act of 2019 was to protect and support, with an intent that would lead to financial hardship, uncertainty and expense in conduct of litigation.

We have come to the conclusion, proceedings instituted before commencement of Act of 2019 on 20.07.2020 would continue before fora corresponding to those under Act of 1986 and not be transferred in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction set for fora established under Act of 2019.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates, [Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020].

_____

This case is a classic example of an unfortunate situation taken note of and lamented by Honorable Sir James Colvilbe in General Manager of Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16.

“These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree.”

– Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sundresh, Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. M/s. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 997 of 2022] decided on 20.10.2023.

_____

It is a well-worn proverb in litigation, echoing Privy Council’s century-old observation, true difficulties of a litigant begin only after they have obtained a decree [General Manager of Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605] It is generally stated, a suit may take 5 years to conclude, but its execution takes 10 years.

If R. Savithri Naidu’s argument is accepted, execution proceedings would not merely take 10 years, but would get trapped in an infinite loop and practically never get completed, reducing hard-won decrees of Competent Courts to mere ‘paper tigers’.

– Hon’ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, R. Savithri Naidu v. M/s. Cotton Corporation of India Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19779 of 2024] decided on 13.02.2026.