Immunity photo
Years
The Supreme Court said that interim adjournment given under the Insolvency and Reporation Disability Code (IBC) does not protect individuals or companies from the regulatory punishment imposed under consumer protection laws. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale gave this important verdict.
New Delhi. The Supreme Court said that interim adjournment given under the Insolvency and Reporation Disability Code (IBC) does not protect individuals or companies from the regulatory punishment imposed under consumer protection laws. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale gave this important verdict. It was determined whether the execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could also be banned during the interim adjournment given under Section 96 of the IBC.
An interim adjournment is applied under Section 96 of the IBC, after which all pending legal proceedings against the borrowing company are temporarily suspended. This also prevents the execution of any decision against the borrower company. East and West Builders owner Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal said in his petition that he was facing insolvency proceedings under the IBC, so the execution of the National Consumer Disputes Prevention Commission (NCDRC) order should be banned.
The Supreme Court bench said in its judgment, “The punishment imposed by NCDRC is of regulatory nature and they do not fall into the 'loan” under the IBC. Under Section 96 of the IBC, the adjournment is not extended to regulatory punishment imposed for non-transportation of consumer protection laws. ”In addition, the bench dismissed the appeal demanding a ban on the punishment imposed by NCDRC in a case related to delay in possession of residential units.
Disclaimer: Prabhasakshi has not edited this news. This news has been published from the feed of PTI-language.
Other news
