https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766988 The SC held that penalty orders passed by NCDRC cannot be stayed under Section 96 IBC moratorium provisions. The court distinguished between civil debt proceedings and regulatory penalties, ruling that NCDRC penalties are regulatory in nature arising from consumer protection law violations, not ordinary contractual debts. Such penalties fall under excluded debts per Section 79(15) IBC and serve to compensate consumers and deter unethical practices rather than recover debts. The moratorium's legislative intent is to preserve debtor assets for resolution, not to protect against all liabilities. The appellant was directed to comply with NCDRC penalties within eight weeks. Appeal dismissed. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Mar 2025 12:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766988 The SC held that penalty orders passed by NCDRC cannot be stayed under Section 96 IBC moratorium provisions. The court distinguished between civil debt proceedings and regulatory penalties, ruling that NCDRC penalties are regulatory in nature arising from consumer protection law violations, not ordinary contractual debts. Such penalties fall under excluded debts per Section 79(15) IBC and serve to compensate consumers and deter unethical practices rather than recover debts. The moratorium's legislative intent is to preserve debtor assets for resolution, not to protect against all liabilities. The appellant was directed to comply with NCDRC penalties within eight weeks. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766988