In a significant relief for home-buyers, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) has lifted the corporate veil between Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd (AHTTL) and its parent Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd (APIL), holding them jointly liable to satisfy long-pending refund orders in a batch of 70 execution petitions. Taking a stern view of continued non-compliance, NCDRC issued a series of stringent directions. It ordered the freezing of AHTTL’s bank accounts and barred the company from creating any third-party rights or dealing with its assets.
The order, passed by a bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh and justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, comes after repeated non-compliance by AHTTL in refunding home-buyers who had invested in the ‘Sushant Megapolis’ project and opted to exit due to delays.
"In the present case out of eight directors or key managerial personnel (KMPs) of APIL, we have already decided in preceding paras that six directors or KMPs, except Pranav Ansal, the current chairman and whole-time director (WTD) and Adbul Sami, company secretary, are not liable. Hence, we hold that Pranav Ansal, the current chairman and WTD of APIL and Abdul Sami, company secretary of APIL, are liable for action under section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, we grant another month's time to APIL, the parent company and AHTTL, (the JD company), to satisfy the decree(s) covered under this order, failing which, after the expiry of one month, proceedings under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall follow against the current directors and KMPs of APIL, including its current managing director (MD) and chief executive officer (CEO) and current chairman and WTD Mr Ansal, and Mr Sami, current company secretary, whose liability has already been decided in the preceding paras after hearing them," the bench says.
Former directors and KMPs who are not held liable by the NCDRC include Sandeep Kohli, Anoop Sethi, Prashant Kumar, Satish Chandra, Kulamani Biswal, and Jagath Chandra.
The bench also noted that eight directors and KMPs of AHTTL, Shivani Saxena (company secretary) and directors Mohammad Aleem, Harpal Yadav, Wajid Ali, Tasleem Siddqi, Vadyapati Mishra, Shriram and Banti failed to appear before the Commission. "Registry shall immediately issue fresh non-bailable arrest warrants against these eight persons, through the concerned station house officers (SHOs) of police stations with direction to arrest and produce them before this Commission for further appropriate directions," NCDRC says.
The dispute dates back to October 2020, when NCDRC directed AHTTL to refund the entire principal amount to certain plot allottees along with 8% interest and ₹50,000 as litigation costs. However, the developer failed to comply, prompting multiple execution applications by decree holders.
Over the years, coercive steps, including attachment of properties and recovery certificates, were initiated. Authorities later found that certain assets were held in the name of APIL, raising questions over the corporate structure and ownership.
After examining documents and submissions, the Commission concluded that AHTTL was effectively operating as a façade for APIL and the broader consortium executing the project. It held that the two entities were “inextricably connected” and functioning under common control.
“The corporate structure… was being misused to avoid satisfaction of decrees,” the Commission observed, ordering that AHTTL and APIL be treated as a single economic unit for the purpose of recovery.
As a result, APIL and its management have been made jointly and severally liable along with AHTTL to satisfy the dues owed to home-buyers.
At the same time, NCDRC clarified that directors and KMPs cannot be held personally liable to repay the decretal amounts if they were not parties to the original complaints.
The commission held that their personal assets cannot be attached under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, it noted that they could still face penal action under Section 72 for failure to comply with orders.
Banks have been directed to attach accounts and provide transaction details, while authorities have been asked to verify and attach immovable properties held in the company’s name.
The commission also directed senior executives of both companies to file affidavits disclosing all assets within four weeks.
Additionally, a bailable warrant has been issued against the company’s authorised representative, requiring appearance before the commission on a personal bond of Rs5 lakh.
Notices have also been issued to the chairman and the company secretary of APIL, requiring them to explain why recovery proceedings should not be initiated against the parent company.
The commission noted that while APIL had earlier been under an insolvency-related moratorium, recent orders had restricted its scope and did not cover the project in question. It held that AHTTL, not being under moratorium, remained fully liable to satisfy the decree.
Home-buyers have been asked to submit details of assets held by both companies to facilitate further recovery proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Procedure Code.
NCDRC has given AHTTL and APIL one month to comply with the refund orders, failing which further penal proceedings under Section 72 may be initiated.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 29 April 2026.
