Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 483
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ravinder Dudeja, J
DEEPAK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
GITANJLI KAPOOR AND ANR – Respondent
CM(M) 335/2025
BHOOMIKA UPPAL
A director who has resigned and was not involved in daily operations cannot be held liable for enforcement actions in consumer disputes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Consumer Protection Act - Enforcement of consumer complaint - The petitioner challenges the issuance of non-bailable warrants for enforcement of a consumer complaint against a company, asserting lack of liability due to resignation and non-involvement in daily operations. (Paras 1, 10, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, allowing for intervention in consumer disputes when due process is questioned. (Paras 1, 12)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a consumer complaint against a company and its director, leading to a refund order. After a moratorium was declared, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, who claims no liability.
Findings of Court:
The court stayed the coercive process of NBWs, requiring the petitioner to appear before the District Forum as needed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, not a party to the original complaint and having resigned, can be held liable for enforcement actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s resignation and lack of involvement in daily operations absolve them from liability, thus questioning the legality of the NBWs issued.
Result: Coercive process of NBW stayed.
ORDER :
CM APPL. 9758/2025 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 335/2025 & CM APPL. 9757/2025 (Stay)
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [“SCDRC”], New Delhi in IA No. 1782/2024 in AEA 05/2024 titled as Deepak Kumar Vs. Gitanjanli Kapoor as also the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [“CDRF”] VI (Distt. New Delhi) in Execution Application bearing EA No. 39/2016 titled as Gitanjli Kapoor Vs M/s Amr Infrastructures Ltd. and Anr. issuing non bailable warrants against the petitioner.
2. The respondent filed a consumer complaint against M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd and one Ram Chander Soni.
3. On 04.11.2015, learned Consumer Forum directed M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd to refund Rs 7 Lacs with 12% interest per annum w.e.f date of pleadings till realisation..
4. In 2016, the respondent filed an application for enforcement of the order dated 04.11.2015.
5. In the meanwhile, moratorium was declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“IBC”] against the company.
6. Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum stayed the enforcement of the order dated 04.11.2015 against M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd, but continued the proceedings against the Directors.
7. The District Forum issued Non-Bailable Warrants [“NBW”] vide order dated 20.05.2024 against the petitioner and other Directors.
8. The application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of NBWs was dismissed and fresh NBWs were issued against the petitioner.
9. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the orders of dismissal of the application for cancellation of NBWs, but the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.11.2024.
10. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither a party in the Consumer Complaint nor in the Execution filed by the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner had since resigned from the company in the year 2018 and was never in-charge and responsible for the day to day conduct of business of the company and therefore, has no liability.
11. Learned counsel draws attention of the Court to the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by this Court in CM (M) 3758/2024 passed against the other Director Mr. Krishan Kumar, where under similar circumstances, this Court issued directions to keep the NBWs in abeyance, subject to the condition that the petitioner therein would continue to appear before the learned District Forum as and when so directed.
12. Issue notice of the petition to the respondents through all permissible modes, returnable for 23.07.2025.
13. Mr. Akhilesh Gusain, Advocate appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that the matter be referred to the Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement. Such request would be considered on the next date, when other matters are also listed.
15. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks with advance copy to opposite side. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
16. The coercive process of NBW be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing with the condition that the petitioner herein would continue to appear before the learned District Forum as and when required.
17. Renotify on 23.07.2025.
