Consumer Protection Prevails: IBC Moratorium Fails To Halt Statutory Penalties
Introduction:
In a recent judgment on March 4, the Supreme Court delivered a clarification on the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In the case of Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors[1]., the legislature conclusively explained that while IBC is mainly for the purpose of decelerating the financial difficulties through the suspension of the debt recovery proceedings, the protective covering does not include statutory penalties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act).
Table of Contents
Background:
The case arose from a dispute involving a property developer who faced 27 penalty orders issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). These penalties were imposed after the developer failed to deliver residential units to homebuyers within the stipulated timelines, thereby breaching consumer protection norms. The penalties were not merely claims for money but served as punitive measures intended to enforce compliance with consumer protection laws and deter further non-compliance.
The developer’s assertion was that, due to the initiation of insolvency proceedings against them under Section 95 of the IBC, an interim moratorium under Section 96 should automatically halt all legal actions, including the enforcement of the penalty orders issued by the NCDRC. The developer contended that since the moratorium was triggered on January 20, 2022, it should provide a blanket protection for all proceedings deemed to relate to any form of “debt.”
Court’s Analysis:
IBC is primarily designed to address financial distress by allowing corporate and personal debtors to restructure their liabilities without the immediate pressure of creditor actions. Under Section 96 of the IBC, an interim moratorium is put in place to temporarily stop legal actions related to debts, giving the debtor time to work on a resolution plan. However, this protective measure is not all-encompassing. Section 79(15) of the IBC categorically excludes certain liabilities such as fines, penalties, and damages imposed by courts or tribunals, from the protection of the moratorium. In effect, these “excluded debts” remain enforceable even during insolvency proceedings.
The Supreme Court clearly stated that its decision was based on the difference between actions that seek to recover financial debts, as opposed to actions that require some kind of regulatory compliance. It was brought forward that the aim of the IBC was to facilitate the resolution of an insolvency, that is, as far as the creditors of a debtor are concerned, to make arrangements for the fair recovery of dues owed to the debtor when it is in financial distress. In doing so, the acts passed by the Supreme Court would result in virtual stays on any legal proceedings that would hinder in any way the debtor from restructuring its finances.
On the contrary, the penalty proceedings under the CP Act have not been aimed at recovering a debt; they are punitive. They are aimed at making businesses comply with the consumer protection norms and act as a deterrent against unfair trade practices. The Court observed that extending the interim moratorium to include such statutory damages would defeat the very purpose of enacting such legislation in the interests of consumer protection. In effect, extending the moratorium to the payment of regulatory penalty would give room for general business to flout their responsibilities if they began bankruptcy proceedings.
The appellant in this case attempted to draw parallels with prior decisions, notably the ruling in P. Mohanraj and Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited[2]. In that case, the Court had stayed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—proceedings that, while quasi-criminal, were still deemed to relate to debt recovery. However, the Supreme Court in the current case made it clear that the nature of the penalty proceedings under the CP Act is fundamentally different from the proceedings under the NI Act.
Corporate and Individual Moratoriums:
An important legal distinction was made by the court concerning the moratorium provisions distinguishing corporate debtors from those felled by the provisions applicable to individuals or personal guarantors. In relation to corporate debtors, Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act provides for wide-ranging protection by enabling a moratorium that effectively halts all legal proceedings, including enforcement and execution actions. Such broad protection is encouraged to pursue a resolution of the company towards repayment of debts. In contradistinction, Section 96 offers only a narrow moratorium for interim relief for individuals and personal guarantors. Protection would be accorded only against legal actions directly connected to what qualifies as a “debt” under the IBC.
A statutory penalty such as the one imposed by NCDRC does not fall within the gist of a monetary debt and is accordingly out of the scope of limited interim moratorium. Allowing the said moratorium in this regard would really defeat the purpose of the very same law, in as much as the interest is in giving a measure of relief to the debtor while striking an effective balance with the need to fulfil statutory obligations. The consumer protection laws exist to protect individuals who might already be facing difficulties arising from delays, financial losses, or deficiencies in services.
Implications for Stakeholders:
For homebuyers, the Court’s ruling represents a victory in the ongoing struggle to ensure accountability in the real estate sector. The decision reinforces that regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws will be enforced regardless of any concurrent insolvency proceedings. This ensures that consumers are not left without recourse simply because a developer is in financial distress.
For developers and other business entities, the ruling serves as a reminder that insolvency proceedings are not a panacea for avoiding all legal consequences. While the IBC provides a mechanism for restructuring financial obligations and managing insolvency, it does not offer a blanket shield against all forms of legal action. Statutory penalties, particularly those intended to protect consumer rights, remain enforceable even in the face of insolvency. This distinction is critical in maintaining the balance between offering relief to debtors and protecting the rights of consumers.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that while the IBC provides essential relief for managing financial distress, it is not designed to serve as a cover for evading statutory responsibilities. The ruling distinguishes between debt recovery processes and regulatory actions, emphasizing that the latter are critical for enforcing compliance with consumer rights. In doing so, the Court has safeguarded the interests of homebuyers and reinforced the importance of holding businesses accountable for their obligations.
[1] Civil Appeal No. 4048 OF 2024.
[2] (2021) 6 SCC 258.
King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys
New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.