Deepak Bajaj Vs Munish Aggarwal and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2025)

Deepak Bajaj Vs Munish Aggarwal and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of as not pressed; liberty granted to the petitioner/surety to move a fresh application before the NCDRC seeking permission to submit alternative but equivalent security (property documents in place of the FDR) with the concurrence of the concerned accused persons, to be considered and disposed of by the NCDRC in accordance with law; no observation on merits; next date of 16.09.2025 cancelled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who had stood surety for Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra facing prosecution under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could secure his discharge before the NCDRC towards full and final satisfaction of the order. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

After hearing arguments, counsel for the petitioner did not press the present petition, while seeking liberty to move a fresh application before the NCDRC for permission to submit alternative but equivalent security, with the concurrence of the concerned accused persons; the petition was disposed of as not pressed.

Key takeaways

The Court granted the liberty as prayed, i.e., to move a fresh application before the NCDRC seeking alternative but equivalent security.ratio¶21
As and when such an application is moved, the NCDRC would consider it and dispose of it in accordance with law.ratio¶22
If the petitioner remains aggrieved, it would be open to him to take steps permissible under law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.; order dated 08.05.2025) disposed of CM(M) 336/2025 as not pressed. Petitioner Deepak Bajaj, who had stood surety for Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra facing prosecution under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, had applied to the NCDRC for his discharge towards full and final satisfaction of the order; that application was adjourned sine die as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, with liberty to revive it upon the Supreme Court's decision. The alternate prayer — replacing the FDR with equivalent security in the form of property documents — had never been raised before the NCDRC. After hearing arguments, counsel did not press the petition but sought liberty to move a fresh application before the NCDRC for submission of alternative but equivalent security with the concurrence of the concerned accused persons. The Court disposed of the petition as not pressed, granted the liberty, directed that the NCDRC would consider and dispose of any such application in accordance with law, left the petitioner free to take steps permissible under law if still aggrieved, cancelled the listed date of 16.09.2025, and expressly recorded that it gave no observation on the merits of any proposed application.

$~50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CM(M) 336/2025

DEEPAK BAJAJ .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt and Ms. Aparna Iyer, Advocates

versus

MUNISH AGGARWAL AND ORS .....Respondent Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 08.05.2025

CM(M) 336/2025 & CM APPL. 28002/2025

Petitioner herein had stood surety for Mr. Ajay Chandra and Mr. Sanjay Chandra who were facing prosecution under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Such surety moved an application before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘ NCDRC ’) for his discharge towards full and final satisfaction of the order. When such application was taken up by learned NCDRC, considering the fact that matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to get it revived as and when matter is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Fact, however, remains that the prayer in the present petition is in alternate also and surety seeks permission to replace the FDR in question with equivalent security in the form of property documents. It seems that no such request was ever made before learned NCDRC.

CM(M) 336/2025 1

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:58:02

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition but, at the same time, seeks liberty to move application afresh before the learned NCDRC seeking permission to submit alternative but equivalent security, with the concurrence of concerned accused persons.

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

Liberty, as prayed, is granted.

As and when any such application is moved, learned NCDRC would consider the same and would dispose it of in accordance with law.

In case, the petitioner is, still, aggrieved, it would be open to him to take steps as permissible under law.

Next date i.e. 16.09.2025 stands cancelled.

It is, however, clarified that this Court has not given any observation on merits of any such proposed application.

MANOJ JAIN, J

MAY 8, 2025/ dr/shs

CM(M) 336/2025 2

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:58:02

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:58:02