The Delhi High Court has recently reaffirmed the authority of consumer commissions to issue arrest warrants under the Consumer Protection Act in the case of Rakesh Khanna vs. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act empowers consumer commissions with judicial authority comparable to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for enforcing their directives.
The Court’s order, dated September 25, stated, “The issuance of arrest warrants against the directors of the Judgment Debtor Company to compel compliance is well within the statutory framework of the CP Act.”
This case arose from a petition filed by Rakesh Khanna, director of VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd, challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) decision to uphold arrest warrants issued against him by the Delhi State Consumer Commission. The complaint was originally filed by Naveen Kumar Aggarwal before the State Commission, alleging deficiencies in services and unfair trade practices by VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. After the Commission ruled in Aggarwal’s favor, arrest warrants were issued against Khanna during the execution proceedings.
Khanna contested the warrants, arguing that he was not a director at the time the cause of action arose and, therefore, could not be held responsible. He further claimed that the warrants were issued arbitrarily and without following the due process of law under Order XII Rule 41(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
However, the Court dismissed Khanna’s arguments, holding that the responsibility to comply with the State Commission’s order extended to all company officials involved at the time of non-compliance. Justice Narula observed, “The petitioner’s role as a director places upon him an obligation to ensure that the company complies with the order of the SCDRC, failing which he becomes liable under the provisions of the CP Act.”
The Court further clarified that the powers granted to consumer commissions under the Consumer Protection Act include the authority to issue arrest warrants, stating, “The CP Act is explicit: those in charge of a company at the time of non-compliance are accountable. By holding a directorial position during this period, the petitioner is naturally included in this responsibility.” The Court also noted that the petitioner’s reliance on procedural elements of the CPC was misplaced, as the CP Act itself confers the authority to issue warrants.
Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowers the NCDRC, SCDRC, and DCDRC with the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for ensuring compliance with their orders, including the authority to issue arrest warrants.
Advocates Saurav Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and JS Matta represented Rakesh Khanna in the proceedings.
