STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/4/MA/19/2024 IN SC/4/EA/15/2021 Sandeep Sukhija PRESENT ADDRESS - Chandigarh ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - Chandigarh ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Vikas Sagar (Advocate)

DATED: 15/04/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Miscellaneous Application No.19 of 2024 in EA No.15 of 2024 (Sandeep Sukhija & Anr. Vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors..)

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:-

None for the decree holders.

Sh. Prateek Garg, Advocate for judgment debtors No.1, 2, 4 & 5.

Name of Judgment Debtor No.3 deleted vide order dated 27.09.2024 from the array of the parties.

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ORDER

15.04.2025 Brief history of these cases:

This miscellaneous application bearing No.19 of 2024 has been filed by judgment debtors No.4 & 5, namely, Sh. Pranav Ansal and Sh. Sushil Ansal seeking stay of the execution proceedings in terms of the statutory interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘IBC’) as mentioned in IA-6209/2023 in IB-657/PB/2023 titled ‘Indian Bank Vs. Mr. Pranav Bansal’.

2. The decree holders contested the application by filing reply by way of affidavit of decree holder No.1 – Sh. Sandeep Sukhija wherein it has been stated that the present execution application is under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is criminal in nature. It has further been stated that the interim moratorium granted by Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal under no stretch of imagination can stay the ongoing criminal proceedings. To say so, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case titled ‘Adarsh Jhunjhunwala v. State Bank of India & Anr.’, WPO 1548 of 2021 decided on 24th December, 2021, wherein it has been observed that if the criminal proceedings or the quasi-criminal proceedings are stayed during the interim moratorium period under Section 96 of IBC, the same would defeat the object and purpose of the Code. It was further observed by the High Court that allowing interim moratorium under IBC to stay criminal proceedings would have the effect of promoting impropriety and illegality by “permitting a wrong doer to commit further wrongs”. It has further been stated that the decreetal order was passed by this Commission in the year 2019 and since then, the decree holders are running from pillar to post in order to get their plot. It has further been stated that the judgment debtors are taking an undue advantage of the provisions of the IBC and by no stretch of imagination, the interim moratorium under the present proceedings is not applicable. Lastly prayer for dismissal for dismissal of the application has been made.

Issue involved:

3. The core issue requiring adjudication in the present matters is whether execution proceedings under Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, can be stayed during the pendency of an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.

Observations/findings of this Commission:

4. Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce Section 94 of IBC as under:-

“……(1) A debtor who commits a default may apply, either personally or through a resolution professional, to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating the insolvency resolution process, by submitting an application.

(2) Where the debtor is a partner of a firm, such debtor shall not apply under this Chapter to the Adjudicating Authority in respect of the firm unless all or a majority of the partners of the firm file the application jointly.

(3) An application under sub-section (1) shall be submitted only in respect of debts which are not excluded debts.

(4) A debtor shall not be entitled to make an applicati