- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
DSK Legal Represents Salman Khan In Appeal Before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
DSK Legal Represents Salman Khan in Appeal Before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Leading Law Firm in India, DSK Legal acted on behalf of Salman Salim Khan in proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), challenging the legality of orders passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Firm successfully secured directions from the NCDRC to examine records, stay execution of warrants, and ensure fair adjudication of the matter. This demonstrates DSK Legal’s expertise in consumer law and protecting client rights in high-profile matters.
Background of the Case
Mr. Salman Khan filed an appeal before the Ld. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“Ld. NCDRC”) challenging the legality and validity of the order dated March 16, 2026, passed by the Ld. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“Ld. SCDRC”) in an appeal filed by the Appellant against an order dated January 15, 2026, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“Ld. DCDRC”) issuing bailable warrants against the Appellant for alleged non-compliance of an Interim Order dated January 6, 2026.
Key Arguments Raised
During the course of the hearing on April 6, 2026, the Counsel for the Appellant raised several key arguments:
- Lack of jurisdiction, as proceedings under Section 89 of the Act can only be initiated by the CCPA or an authorised officer, and Respondent No. 1 lacks locus standi.
- Violation of natural justice, as the Interim Order was passed ex parte and bailable warrants were issued without an opportunity of hearing.
- No liability as endorser, the Appellant being merely a brand ambassador with no control over advertisements.
- Failure of the Ld. DCDRC to adjudicate the jurisdictional objections before passing coercive orders.
- Mechanical affirmation by the Ld. SCDRC without independent examination.
- Mala fide conduct, as similar complaints were previously withdrawn on the ground of non-maintainability.
NCDRC Directions
The Ld. NCDRC, in its order dated April 8, 2026, directed:
- Examination of the records of the Ld. DCDRC and Ld. SCDRC.
- Dispatch of all relevant records under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the Registrar of the Ld. NCDRC.
- Compliance by the Ld. DCDRC in sending the records forthwith, to be produced before the Ld. NCDRC on April 14, 2026.
- Issuance of notice to Respondent No. 1 by the Ld. SCDRC and the Ld. DCDRC.
- Stay of all proceedings conducted in furtherance of the impugned order, with execution of any warrants to remain in abeyance till the disposal of the matter before the Ld. NCDRC.
The next date in the matter is April 15, 2026.
Team
The DSK Legal team acting on the matter included Parag Khandhar (Partner), Chandrima Mitra (Partner), Tapan Radkar, and Zara Dhanbhoora. External counsel support was provided by Senior Counsel Ravi Prakash.
Conclusion
On behalf of Salman Khan, DSK Legal successfully ensured that the NCDRC issued directions to safeguard the Appellant’s rights, stay coercive actions, and review the proceedings at lower commissions. This reinforces the Firm’s strong advocacy in consumer law matters and its ability to protect client interests in high-profile and complex legal proceedings.
Click to know more about DSK Legal
If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at info@legalera.in or call us on +91 8879634922.


