Consumer Protection Act

Summary: Recent judicial developments in India are reshaping the treatment of homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Courts have moved beyond merely recognising homebuyers as financial creditors to substantively distinguishing genuine homebuyers from speculative investors, ensuring the Code is not misused as a recovery tool. While admission into insolvency remains a narrow enquiry of debt and default, broader homebuyer protection is addressed within the resolution process through prospective directions, equitable exceptions for belated claims, and judicial intervention against third-party actions that threaten project viability  Alongside, consumer protection remedies under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act continue to offer parallel avenues for redressal. The evolving framework seeks to balance procedural discipline with fairness, ensuring genuine homebuyers are not left without effective remedies.

Continue Reading Homebuyers under the Code: Judicial Calibration Between Protection and Process
Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies

INTRODUCTION

While expanding the jurisprudence of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Division Bench of the Supreme Court (“SC”), in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth and Ors.,[1] held that an interim moratorium under the IBC does not apply to execution proceedings for penalties imposed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Consumer Protection Act”). Once an insolvency application is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, moratorium under the IBC comes into effect, which is a temporary suspension of legal actions against the debtor.

Continue Reading Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies
Protection Laws for alleged deficiency in services

Introduction

An important question on whether advocates are liable for alleged deficiency in services under the Indian Consumer Protection Act has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.[1],has held that advocates would not be covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CPA 1986”), as re-enacted by the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“CPA 2019”) (‘collectively referred as Acts/ consumer law framework’). Until the said decision, there was no definite pronouncement on the concerned issue.

Continue Reading Advocates no longer liable under Consumer Protection Laws for alleged deficiency in services
Commercial Purchases: Conundrum under Consumer Protection Laws

Introduction: Commercial Enterprise and Its Commercial Purpose

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Act”), and the amended Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“New Act”), are the go-to sources of reference for consumer disputes and conflicts. The Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and Section 2(7) of the New Act both define who “is” and “is not” a “consumer”. Both Acts state that a customer is any person who purchases goods or avails services for any consideration; however, any person purchasing goods or availing services for resale or any commercial purpose[1] to make profit/gain is not a consumer. An explanation to the provisions clarifies that despite buying goods or availing services a person would still be classified as a consumer (under both the Acts) if these goods or services constitute a source of livelihood by means of self-employment.

Continue Reading Commercial Purchases: Conundrum under Consumer Protection Laws