Apr 28, 2025

SC Holds that Moratorium under IBC Does Not Shield Individuals from Execution of Penalty Orders under Consumer Law

The SC, in the case of Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth,[1] has held that penalties imposed under consumer laws, cannot be equated to recovery of an outstanding debt and hence, the moratorium that applies to personal guarantors under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) does not extend to execution of such penalties. The SC observed that while civil proceedings are generally stayed under the moratorium under the IBC, it does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection law.

[1] Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 493.

TAGS

SHARE

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.