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.

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Akola in Consumer Complaint No.312/2021 dated 20.07.2022, whereby the learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner to return the JCB Machine to respondent no.1. Another prayer is to quash and set aside the order dated 19.06.2024 whereby bailable warrants are issued against the owner and Chief Executive Officer of petitioner no.1 Company.

3. Facts of the case are such that – the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are its employees. On 04.10.2021 the Reserve Bank of India issued a notification superseding the Board of Directors of the petitioner Company. Pursuant to that, the Reserve Bank of India has preferred an application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata bench bearing CT (IB) No.2904/2021 for initiation of insolvency resolution process. By order dated 08.10.2021, the application was admitted and moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “the I.B. Code” for short”), came to be imposed. It is submitted that the resolution plan of the petitioner Company has been sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench vide order dated

11.08.2023.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that during pendency of the moratorium proceedings, on 26.10.2021, the respondent no.1 preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Akola under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This complaint was filed against respondent nos.2 and 3 herein, and petitioner was not made a party to the same. The contention of respondent no.1 in the complaint was that the petitioner Company has illegally repossessed his JCB machine on the ground of non-payment of installments, which machine had been purchased after availing finance from the company. By order dated 20.07.2022, the said complaint filed by respondent no.1 came to be allowed and respondent nos. 2 and 3 were directed to return the JCB machine upon payment of dues. The contention of petitioner Company is that, the order has been passed after imposition of moratorium and during the pendency of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and therefore, the order passed by the Consumer Commission is completely unenforceable and in contravention of law.

5. It is contented by the petitioner that a recovery petition was filed by respondent no.1 before District Consumer Commission on 08.02.2023, in which non-bailable warrants were issued, pursuant to which respondent nos.2 and 3 appeared before the said Commission. Thereafter, on 19.06.2024, an application came to be filed by the respondent no.1 for issuance of warrant against the owner and Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner Company, wherein the learned District Consumer Commission has issued bailable warrants. The petitioner submits that the Company has moved application on 31.07.2024 questioning maintainability of the proceedings before the District Consumer Commission, and also filed an application on 03.09.2024 praying recalling of the arrest warrants issued on 19.06.2024. This application was allowed, thereby the warrants issued were recalled till the disposal of the application at Exh.34 filed on 31.07.2024 by the petitioner. The petitioner has also questioned the aforesaid orders in this p