RAVINDER KAUR vs DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR AND OTHERS — CWP/27937/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Sep-2025

CNR: PHHC011395722025

e-Filing Number

28-08-2025

Filing Number

CWP/54444/2025

Filing Date

29-Aug-2025

Registration No

CWP/27937/2025

Registration Date

16-Sep-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.12 - MISC. PUNJAB ( 738 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVINDER KAUR

    Adv. Fatehjeet Singh

  2. 2.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SAS Nagar and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR AND OTHERS

  2. 2.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SAS Nagar and others

  3. 3.Hind Motor

  4. 4.Global Administration Service

  5. 5.Kalsi Car Clinic

  6. 6.tata Motor SCO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP-27937-2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Ravinder Kaur's petition challenging the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order that halted execution proceedings against a company due to NCLT moratorium declaration. The Court held that the petitioner could pursue alternative remedies by approaching the Resolution Professional, NCLT (if eligible), or filing a fresh execution application naming the specific defaulting officer, and found no reason to interfere with the Commission's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/27937/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-27937-2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Ravinder Kaur's petition challenging the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order that halted execution proceedings against a company due to NCLT moratorium declaration. The Court held that the petitioner could pursue alternative remedies by approaching the Resolution Professional, NCLT (if eligible), or filing a fresh execution application naming the specific defaulting officer, and found no reason to interfere with the Commission's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case