SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL versus BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL versus BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

Penalties imposed by the NCDRC under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are regulatory/compensatory in nature and constitute 'excluded debts' under Section 79(15) of the IBC; therefore the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not stay execution of such penalties and the NCDRC correctly refused to stay the execution proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal; Respondent: Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 4048 of 2024 / Appeal Against the Final Judgment and Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dated 07.02.2024
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Moratorium, Stay of Execution, Penalty, Execution Proceedings, Personal Guarantor, Regulatory Penalties
Consumer Protection Insolvency and Bankruptcy Negotiable Instruments Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Moratorium Stay of Execution Penalty +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal

Appellant

Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 4048 of 2024 / Appeal Against the Final Judgment and Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dated 07.02.2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether execution of penalty orders passed by the NCDRC can be stayed under the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC
  2. 2 Whether penalties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act constitute ‘debt’ for the purposes of the IBC moratorium
  3. 3 Whether proceedings under Section 27 CP Act are analogous to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act for moratorium purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Penalties imposed by the NCDRC under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are regulatory/compensatory in nature and constitute 'excluded debts' under Section 79(15) of the IBC; therefore the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not stay execution of such penalties and the NCDRC correctly refused to stay the execution proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant directed to comply with the penalties imposed by the NCDRC within eight weeks from the date of this judgment