Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth – Respondent
What is the applicability of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC to penalties imposed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? What is the distinction between debt recovery proceedings and regulatory penalties under consumer protection laws in the context of IBC moratorium? Can execution proceedings under Section 27 of the CP Act be stayed during an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC?
Key Points: - (!) The penalties imputed by NCDRC are regulatory penalties for non-compliance with consumer protection laws, not debts, and are not covered by IBC moratorium. (!) (!) - (!) There is a fundamental distinction between civil (debt-related) proceedings and criminal/regulatory penalties; IBC Section 96 moratorium governs debts, not regulatory penalties. (!) (!) - (!) Moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC applies to debts and excludes certain "excluded debts" under Section 79(15), such as damages for negligence or statutory penalties, which are not stayed. (!) (!) - (!) Section 27 CP Act penalties are punitive/regulatory and do not constitute a debt recovery proceeding; staying them would undermine consumer protection. (!) (!) - (!) The NCDRC’s order holding that IBC moratorium does not bar Section 27 CP Act penalties is affirmed. (!) - (!) Corporate moratorium under Section 14 is broader than individual/m guarantor moratorium under Section 96; the latter is limited to debts. (!) (!) - (!) Damages under CP Act are "excluded debts" under Section 79(15) and remain outside the moratorium. (!)
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1[NCDRC], wherein multiple penalties (27 in total) were imposed on the appellant for failing to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers as per the agreed timeline. The appellant seeks a stay on the penalty proceedings before the NCDRC, contending that an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20162[IBC] has been filed against them, triggering an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.
2. This Court is called upon to adjudicate whether execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19863[CP Act], can also be stayed during an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC. The present matter arises from an application filed by the appellant, who is the proprietor of proforma respondent no. 3 – East & West Builders (RNA Corp. Group Co.), in an execution application filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the NCDRC, challenging the execution of multiple penalty orders imposed by the NCDRC during the pendency of insolvency proceedings against the Corporatio
(1) Penalties imposed by NCDRC are regulatory in nature and do not constitute “debt” under IBC – Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance ....
The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not protect individuals from criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour.
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are penal and cannot be stayed by the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, affirming the distinction between criminal and c....
Moratoriums under Sections 14 and 96 of IBC against corporate and personal guarantors do not bar recovery proceedings against principal borrower with no insolvency proceedings initiated against it, d....
The court confirmed that consumer complaints seeking recovery cannot proceed against a company under moratorium, as such actions are barred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Execution of decree – Only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC against company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against directors/officers of company for exec....
The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not protect individuals who are directors or guarantors of a corporate debtor from criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments A....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under Sec. 138 of NI Act are covered by the term 'any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt' appearing in ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
