1. Revision petition challenging State Commission's conditional stay order requiring deposit of entire decretal amount. (Para 1 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3253
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Saroj Yadav, Presiding Member
Ashok Auto Sales Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Rajnesh Kumar – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1318/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidhant Kapoor, Palak Rawat
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidhant Kapoor, Palak Rawat
The mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act has no nexus with the grant of a stay. A stay may be conditional upon further deposits, provided the court assigns cogent reasons for amounts exceeding the statutory 50%.
Headnote:(A) Conditional Stay - Deposit of Decretal Amount - The mandatory pre-deposit required for the entertainment of an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act is distinct from the conditions imposed for the grant of a stay on execution proceedings. (Para 10)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Speaking Orders - While a Commission may grant a conditional stay subject to deposit of an amount higher than 50% of the decretal amount, such directions must be supported by cogent reasons and a speaking order. (Para 7, 9)
Issues: Whether the State Commission's order granting stay subject to the deposit of the remaining decretal amount (effectively 50% beyond the mandatory pre-deposit) was illegal or lacked reasoning.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued State Commission's stay order was non-speaking, unreasoned, and contrary to Supreme Court precedents. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. State Commission's direction to deposit entire decretal amount minus pre-deposit effectively required only 50% deposit, which is permissible. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. Conditional stay requiring deposit of entire amount or higher than 50% must be supported by cogent reasons; pre-deposit has no nexus with stay. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Revision petition dismissed at admission stage; no illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order. (Para 10 )
6. Does the pre-deposit condition under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act have any nexus with the grant of stay?
No, the pre-deposit condition is mandatory for entertainment of appeal but has no nexus with grant of stay. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. When can a conditional stay require deposit of the entire decretal amount or an amount higher than 50%?
Only when cogent reasons are assigned by the appellate commission; a speaking order is necessary. (Para 7 , 9 )
8. Does a direction to deposit the entire decretal amount minus the pre-deposit amount effectively require only 50% deposit?
Yes, because the pre-deposit of 50% is mandatory; the net additional deposit is only 50% of the decretal amount. (Para 10 )
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)
WITH
NC/IA/12304/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)
NC/IA/12303/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)
NC/IA/12302/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)
ASHOK AUTO SALES LTD Through its Branch Manager
BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHANDPUR BYPASS ROADBULANDSHAHR,UTTAR PRADESH.
ASHOK AUTO SALES LTD Through its Manager
BUSINESS ADDRESS - NUNHAI CHHANDEEP ROADAGRA,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAJNESH KUMAR S/o. Jagrosh Singh
PERMANENT ADDRESS - J.S. EDUCATION ACADEMY , DASTURA , KHURZA, JHAJHAR
ROAD , BULANDSHAHR,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SIDHANT KAPOOR, ADVOCATE MS. PALAK RAWAT,
ADVOCATE
DATED: 22/12/2025
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 has been filed by M/s. Ashok Auto Sales Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner/Opposite Party) against the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred
to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. SC/9/FA/324/2025, arising out of the order
dated 11.12.2024, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in
Complaint Case No. 133/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the learned State Commission has
passed a non-speaking, unreasoned and cryptic order granting stay of the execution
proceedings in the consumer complaint, subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount,
which is Rs.13,33,200/- along with 6% yearly interest from the date of filing of the
complaint and Rs.50,000/- as mental compensation in Rs.10,000/- for litigation costs
before the District Commission, after adjusting the amount deposited as the mandatory
pre-deposit before the State Commission at the time of filing of the Appeal, which is
contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on following case Laws:
1. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bharat Enterprises
Civil Appeal Nos. 3678-3679 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP Civil) Nos.
13166-13167 of 2020) decided on 16.11.2020;
2. TDI Infratech Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Arora 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3814 decided
on 26.07.2021;
3. Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. Vs. Amazon Technologies Inc. Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19767 of 2025 decided on 07.10.2025.
5. Considered the submissions made, perused the record and gone through the case
Laws cited.
6. It appears that the learned State Commission in its order dated 09.09.2025,
impugned herein, has ordered the petitioner / appellant to deposit the entire decretal
amount before the concerned District Commission within a period of six weeks, while
granting stay.
7. In Manohar Infrastructure and constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021decided on 07.12.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down as under:
“15. The sum and substance of the above discussion and our conclusions would
be that:
(i) Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission
under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is
mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission;
(ii) The object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals;
(iii) The said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the
National Commission;
(iv) While considering the stay application in staying the order passed by the State
Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay directing
the appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount and / or any amount higher than
50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission;
(v) However, at the same time, the National Commission has to assign some
cogent reasons and / or pass a speaking order w
