Madras High Court
CRP/5609/2026 of Vijayakumar Vs M/s.Mestiere Design Studio on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5609 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011886312026}
Vijayakumar
S/o.Vellaiyan, Address at No.12/15 Ex-
Servicemen Colony, Thiyagadurugam,
Kallakurichi 606 206.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M/s.Mestiere Design Studio
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Bathrinathan, Pankajam Colony Main
Street, Pankajam Colony, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai 625 009.
2.M/s.Mestiere Design Studio
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Bathrinathan, Pankajam Colony Main
Street, Pankajam Colony, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai 625 009.
Respondent(s)
Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the online rejection order dated 05.06.2026 passed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Chennai in consumer complaint bearing e-filing No.CC.Reference No.202605261065 of 2026 and consequently direct the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Chennai to number the same wtihin the
time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Hardhik R
For Nathan And Associates
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the return of the consumer complaint citing pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint, being more than two Crores and the said Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Chennai having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited vs Akshaya Signature Homes Private Limited (decided on 23.08.2024) has settled the legal preposition with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction which has to be determined not with regard to the consideration reflected in the document, but which is subject matter of the dispute alone. This is a similar case, where though the contract value is Rs.4,00,00,000/-(Rupees four Crores), the petitioner is not aggrieved by the entire Rs.4,25,25,699/-(Rupees Four Crores Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Nine Ony). The complainant is not aggrieved by the total sale consideration of the contract value covered by the agreement between the parties and the grievance is only with regard to deficiency in service with regard to abandonment of private by the respondent opposite party in midway. The petitioner has in fact, specifically valued the complaint at Rs.1,68,71,979/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lakhs Seventy One Thousand and Nine Hundred Seventy Nine Only) and has sought for relief only with regard to the said amount together with interest and costs thereon apart from compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) and cost of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
4. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in de hors the fact that the contract value is Rs.4,25,25,699/-(Rupees Four Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Nine Only), when the complaint is restricted to Rs.1,68,71,979/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Nine only), which is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the Registry ought not to have returned the complaint citing lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision petition.
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr Registry is directed to return the original compliant filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to the counsel for the petitioner to enable the original petition to be represented before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai and the Registry of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Chennai shall entertain the complaint, if it is otherwise in order, not putting the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction against the petitioner.
6. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 21.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai.