In a significant ruling reinforcing the enforceability of consumer rights, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has permitted coercive action against Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited for failure to comply with refund directions issued in favour of homebuyers, while also observing that in appropriate circumstances, the corporate veil may be lifted to hold promoters and directors accountable.
The order, pronounced on 08 April 2026, arises out of a batch of execution applications filed by multiple decree holders in consumer complaints relating to delayed possession and non-refund of amounts paid in real estate projects. The Commission was called upon to examine not only continued non-compliance by the developer but also the extent to which liability could extend beyond the company to its directors and its parent entity.
The background of the dispute lies in earlier orders passed by the Commission directing refund of the amounts deposited by homebuyers along with interest and costs. In certain cases, interest was awarded up to 12% per annum, with specific timelines prescribed for compliance. Despite these clear directions, the developer failed to honour the decrees, compelling the decree holders to initiate execution proceedings before the Commission.
Also Read Supreme Court: Builder Cannot Force Possession Without Occupancy Certificate.
During the course of the proceedings, the Commission noted a pattern of repeated non-compliance and evasive conduct. Directions to disclose bank accounts, assets and details of key managerial personnel were not complied with in a meaningful manner. Even affidavits filed were found to be incomplete and lacking in material particulars. The Commission further recorded that several opportunities had been granted to the judgment debtor company to satisfy the decrees, but no substantial compliance was forthcoming.
A critical issue that arose for consideration was whether the liability for non-compliance could be extended to the directors and promoters of the company, as well as to its parent company, Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. The Commission framed the question in the context of Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and examined whether the circumstances warranted lifting of the corporate veil so as to prevent misuse of the corporate structure to defeat consumer claims.
Read Also Basement or Parking Ownership Does Not Confer Housing Society Membership: Bombay High Court
The Commission observed that corporate entities cannot be permitted to use layered structures as a shield against lawful decrees, particularly where non-compliance appears to be wilful and persistent. It emphasized that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil is not alien to consumer jurisprudence and may be invoked where justice so demands, especially in cases involving large-scale defaults affecting numerous homebuyers.
In view of continued defiance of its orders, the Commission proceeded to permit coercive measures against the judgment debtor and its functionaries. These measures included issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants, attachment of properties, and directions restricting the operation of bank accounts. The Commission also noted that recovery proceedings had been initiated through the machinery of the State by treating the outstanding amounts as arrears of land revenue, thereby strengthening the execution process.
The proceedings further revealed that certain properties linked to the developer were found to be held in the name of the parent company, raising questions regarding the segregation of assets and the true control of the corporate structure. This aspect assumed importance in the context of determining whether the parent company could be held liable for the obligations of its subsidiary, particularly where the latter had failed to satisfy decrees passed against it.
Read Also Axis Bank Liable For Refusing Demonetised Deposit: NCDRC Awards ₹3.19 Crore
The Commission also took note of directions issued by the Supreme Court calling for expeditious disposal of execution proceedings, and proceeded to deal with the batch of cases in a time-bound manner. The emphasis on timely enforcement reflects a broader judicial trend of ensuring that consumer forum orders are not rendered ineffective due to prolonged non-compliance.
The ruling marks an important development in consumer law enforcement, particularly in the real estate sector where delays and defaults by developers have been a recurring concern. By recognizing the possibility of lifting the corporate veil and by endorsing stringent coercive measures, the Commission has reinforced the principle that consumer remedies must be meaningful and enforceable in practice.
The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for developers and corporate groups operating through multiple entities, as it signals that courts and tribunals will not hesitate to look beyond the corporate form where it is used to frustrate legitimate claims of consumers. For homebuyers, the decision offers a measure of reassurance that legal remedies, when pursued diligently, can lead to effective enforcement even against large and complex corporate structures.
Click Here To Read And Download The Order
Contact The Law Suits
The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom
Next to Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall
Andheri Link Road, Andheri West
Mumbai – 400053
Phone: +91 8928 372392
Email: adv.Bhimani@gmail.com