Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeals: Civil Appeal Nos. 4289‑4290 of 2025 filed by Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah & Ors. (Appellants).
  • Respondents: Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. (now Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.) (Respondent 1) and associated entities – Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2), promoters/directors of Respondents 1 & 2 (Respondents 3‑5), and landowners of the project land (Respondents 6‑7).
  • Underlying dispute: Homebuyers booked apartments in the ‘Mantri Manyata Energia’ project; possession was due by 31‑Dec‑2018 but was not delivered despite full payment, leading to Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2023 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
  • Parallel insolvency proceeding: The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, on 23‑Aug‑2024 admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Respondent 1, initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and imposing a moratorium under Section 14 IBC on Respondent 1.
  • Interlocutory applications: The appellants filed I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 and I.A. No. 15656 of 2024 before the NCDRC, seeking rehearing of the consumer complaint against Respondents 2‑7 despite the moratorium on Respondent 1.
  • NCDRC order (20‑Jan‑2025): Rejected both IA applications, holding that liability could not be examined independently of Respondent 1 and adjourned the consumer complaint sine die.
  • The present appeal challenges that order.

Court’s Reasoning

  • Section 14 IBC creates a statutory moratorium that halts pending suits against the corporate debtor only; it does not extend to subsidiaries, promoters, directors, or personal guarantors unless expressly provided.
  • Precedents cited: P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (moratorium applies only to corporate debtor), Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association v. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (moratorium does not protect promoters/directors), and Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors. (moratorium’s protective sweep must remain within statutory limits and should not eclipse remedies under the Consumer Protection Act).
  • The NCDRC’s rationale that the alleged deficiency pertained solely to Respondent 1 was erroneous because liability of Respondents 2‑7 remains a separate question not barred by the moratorium.
  • The Court held that the NCDRC was not justified in refusing to entertain the interlocutory applications; it must allow the consumer complaint to proceed against Respondents 2‑7 and determine any liability after hearing the parties.

Final Outcome

  • The appeals are partly allowed.
  • The rejection of I.A. No. 15656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 by the NCDRC is set aside.
  • The NCDRC is directed to proceed to hear Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2023 with respect to Respondents 2‑7 in accordance with law.
  • Proceedings against Respondent 1 continue to be governed by the moratorium under Section 14 IBC.

Topics: Consumer Complaint, Insolvency Moratorium