Himachal High Court issues notice in writ challenging mandatory 50% pre-deposit under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019; grants protection against coercive execution

The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla has issued notice in CWP No. 21050 of 2025, titled Jadooz Media Solution Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Rahul Nehra vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein the constitutional validity and mandatory application of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been challenged.

The petition assails the requirement of compulsory 50% pre-deposit of the awarded amount as a condition precedent for admission and listing of an appeal, particularly in cases arising out of ex-parte consumer orders passed without proper service of notice and in disputes whose cause of action arose prior to the enforcement of the 2019 Act.

Order dated 02.01.2026

On 02 January 2026, the Division Bench was pleased to:

• Issue notice to the respondents;
• Direct issuance of notice to private respondents;
• Requisition the entire record of the consumer complaint from the District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala; and
• Grant interim protection by directing that no coercive action shall be taken in Execution Petition No. DC/18/EA/14/2024, pending before the District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, till the next date of hearing.

While permitting the execution proceedings to formally continue, the Hon’ble Court has restrained coercive measures, including arrest or penal action, thereby safeguarding the petitioner from irreparable harm.

Importance of the Case

The present writ petition raises substantial questions of law of national importance, including:

• Whether Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be applied mechanically and retrospectively to disputes where the transaction and cause of action arose under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
• Whether the statutory right of appeal, being a vested and substantive right, can be rendered illusory and inaccessible by imposing an onerous and non-waivable financial pre-condition;
• Whether insistence on a 50% pre-deposit in cases of ex-parte consumer awards passed without valid service violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; and
• Whether denial of listing of an appeal solely due to registry objections, without judicial consideration of an exemption application, amounts to denial of access to justice.

The case has far-reaching implications for small and medium enterprises, startups, and business entities facing ex-parte consumer orders and coercive recoveries, who are rendered remediless due to financial incapacity to comply with mandatory pre-deposit requirements.

Role of Advocate Ganesh Barowalia

The writ petition has been filed, argued and led by Advocate Ganesh Barowalia, assisted by Advocate Anamika Kohali, on behalf of the petitioner company.

Advocate Barowalia has:

• Structured a comprehensive constitutional challenge to Section 41 of the CPA, 2019;
• Demonstrated that the right of appeal accrued under the 1986 Act and cannot be curtailed by a subsequent statute;
• Highlighted gross violations of natural justice, improper service, and arbitrary ex-parte adjudication;
• Placed reliance on settled constitutional principles governing vested rights, retrospective application of laws, access to justice, and proportionality; and
• Secured immediate interim protection against coercive execution, preventing irreparable injury to the petitioner.

Next Date

The matter is now listed for further hearing on 30 March 2026.

This case is expected to serve as a significant judicial precedent on the scope, limits and constitutional validity of mandatory pre-deposit provisions under consumer law in India.