2026 (7) TMI 1787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a, Adv., Mr. Rahul Sethi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv., Mr. Govind Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Adv., Mr. Chandrashekhar Chaklabi, Adv., Mr. Sriharikiran Gottipati, Adv., Mr. Palash Maheshwari, Adv., M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR, M/S.  Devasa & Co., AOR. JUDGMENT PER VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The present civil appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC.] in I.A. No. 15656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 in Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2023, whereby the NCDRC rejected the applications seeking continuation of consumer complaint against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in view of the moratorium imposed agai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 2.3. During the pendency of the consumer complaint, the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT], Bengaluru Bench, by an order dated 23.08.2024, admitted an application under Section 9 of the IBC against Respondent No. 1 and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short, CIRP) as a result of which a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC came to be imposed against Respondent No. 1. 2.4. In view of the subsequent development, the appellants filed I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 before the NCDRC, placing the order of the NCLT and praying that notwithstanding the moratorium operating against Respondent No. 1, the consumer complaint be reheard and proceeded with against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 2.5. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pending suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor, including execution proceedings, comes to an automatic halt. The object of this moratorium is to preserve the assets of the corporate debtor during the insolvency resolution proceedings and to facilitate an orderly resolution. 6. The scope of the moratorium is statutory. It is not open either to the adjudicating authority or the Court to enlarge its ambit beyond what the statute contemplates. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the moratorium operates against the corporate debtor alone. No other category, whether it be any subsidiary company, any managers/ directors, personal guarantors etc. can be added to it unless specifically provided. This Court in P. Mohan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the moratorium operating against Respondent No. 1, the corporate debtor. 10. The NCDRC, however, rejected the aforesaid applications. It observed that the liability arising from the allegations of deficiency in service was yet to be determined. At the same time, it held that the alleged deficiency pertained only to Respondent No. 1 since all agreements for construction and sale were entered into between the appellants and respondent No. 1. As a result of which, the proceedings could not be split up to continue against the remaining respondents. 11. In our view, this approach is erroneous. In the present case, Respondent No. 1 alone is the corporate debtor against whom the CIRP has been initiated. No independent moratorium or indepen....