Tejas J. Shah And Amisha T. Shah vs Mantri Technology Constellations Priate Limited (Now Known As Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.)

2026 INSC 746
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4289-4290 OF 2025

TEJAS J.SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH
& ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS
PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS
BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY
CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.)
& ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The present civil appeals arise out of the judgment
and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by National
1
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in I.A.
No. 15656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 in
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2023, whereby the
NCDRC rejected the applications seeking
continuation of consumer complaint against
Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in view of the moratorium
imposed against Respondent No.1 under Section 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.07.27
17:24:59 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter referred to as NCDRC.
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 1

2
of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , and
adjourned the complaint sine die.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows:
2.1. The appellants are homebuyers who had
booked residential apartments in a project namely
‘Mantri Manyata Energia’ which was being
developed by Respondent No. 1, Mantri
Technology Constellations Private Limited (now
known as Buoyant Technology Constellations
Private Limited). Respondent No. 2, Mantri
Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a company alleged to have
been associated with the development of the said
project. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are alleged to be
the promoters/ directors of Respondent No. 1 and
2 companies, while Respondent No.6 and 7 are the
landowners of the project land. Pursuant to the
transaction, construction agreements and
agreements for sale in respect of undivided share
in the project land came to be executed between
the appellants and Respondent No. 1 in 2016. As
per the terms of the agreement, possession of the
apartments was to be handed over on or before
31.12.2018.

2
Hereinafter referred to as IBC.
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 2

2.2. According to the appellants, despite
substantial payment of the sale consideration
coupled with repeated assurances regarding
completion of the project, possession of the
apartments was not delivered within the
stipulated time. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants,
along with other homebuyers instituted
Consumer Case No. 13 of 2023 before NCDRC
alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade
practices against Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
2.3. During the pendency of the consumer
3
complaint, the National Company Law Tribunal ,
Bengaluru Bench, by an order dated 23.08.2024,
admitted an application under Section 9 of the
IBC against Respondent No.1 and initiated the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for
short, CIRP) as a result of which a moratorium
under Section 14 of the IBC came to be imposed
against Respondent No.1.
2.4. In view of the subsequent development, the
appellants filed I.A. No. 14200 of 2024 before the
NCDRC, placing the order of the NCLT and
praying that notwithstanding the moratorium
operating against Respondent No.1, the consumer

3
Hereinafter referred to as NCLT.
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 3

complaint be reheard and proceeded with against
Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
2.5. Thereafter, the appellants filed I.A. No. 15656
of 2024 seeking rehearing of I.A. No. 14200 of
2024 and reiterating their prayer for continuing
the hearing of the consumer complaint against the
rest of the respondents.
2.6. By the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, the
NCDRC rejected the aforesaid applications
holding, inter alia, that the liability of Respondent
Nos. 2 to 7 could not be independently examined
at that stage in view of the moratorium operating
against Respondent No.1, and consequently
adjourned the consumer complaint sine die .
2.7. It is this order which is being assailed before
us.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants,
Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No. 2, Mr. Sajan Povayya,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.
6 and 7, Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 and
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1.
4. After examining the material placed on record, it can
be concluded that the issue involved before us lies in
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 4

a narrow compass. The limited question is whether
the NCDRC was justified in rejecting the IAs filed by
the appellants on account of the moratorium
operating against Respondent No.1.
5. In order to answer that, we must begin with an
understanding of Section 14 IBC. The statute
provides that once the insolvency process has begun
and a moratorium is declared, among other things,
the continuation of pending suits and proceedings
against the corporate debtor, including execution
proceedings, comes to an automatic halt. The object
of this moratorium is to preserve the assets of the
corporate debtor during the insolvency resolution
proceedings and to facilitate an orderly resolution.
6. The scope of the moratorium is statutory. It is not
open either to the adjudicating authority or the Court
to enlarge its ambit beyond what the statute
contemplates. A plain reading of the provision
makes it clear that the moratorium operates against
the corporate debtor alone. No other category,
whether it be any subsidiary company, any
managers/ directors, personal guarantors etc. can
be added to it unless specifically provided. This
Court in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt.
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 5

4
Ltd . while discussing the scope of applicability of
the moratorium on Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 proceedings, noted that
Section 14 applied only to the corporate debtor and
that natural persons can be held liable under the
Act.
7. Again in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers
5
Association v. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd .
wherein a consumer complaint was filed against the
developers, this Court held that a moratorium
against the corporate debtor does not give protection
to the promoters and directors of the corporate
debtor and that proceedings can continue against
them.
8. A similar approach is reflected in the decision of this
6
Court in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal . Though
the case arose in context of Section 96 IBC, the
underlying principle remains instructive. It was held
that the protective sweep of a moratorium must
remain in the four walls as carved out by the statute.
It ought not be expanded in a manner that stultifies
remedies envisaged under the Consumer Protection
Act, unless expressly provided. The object of the

4
(2021) 6 SC 258.
5
(2024) 5 SCC 745.
6
Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors ., 2025 INSC
314.
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 6

Code is to facilitate the resolution process and not to
eclipse the statutory remedies.
9. Viewed in this backdrop, the appellants had
preferred I.A. No. 15656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 14200
of 2024 urging the NCDRC to proceed with the
consumer complaint against Respondent Nos. 2-7,
notwithstanding the moratorium operating against
Respondent No.1, the corporate debtor.
10. The NCDRC, however, rejected the aforesaid
applications. It observed that the liability arising
from the allegations of deficiency in service was yet
to be determined. At the same time, it held that the
alleged deficiency pertained only to Respondent No.1
since all agreements for construction and sale were
entered into between the appellants and respondent
No.1. As a result of which, the proceedings could not
be split up to continue against the remaining
respondents.
11. In our view, this approach is erroneous. In the
present case, Respondent No.1 alone is the corporate
debtor against whom the CIRP has been initiated. No
independent moratorium or independent protection
operates in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. In the
absence of any legal bar against continuation of
proceedings qua the said respondents, the NCDRC
was not justified in rejecting appellants’ prayer to
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 7

proceed with the complaint against the rest of the
respondents.
12. The impugned order proceeds on the premise
that since the alleged deficiency in service was
attributable only to Respondent No.1, no
independent proceedings could continue against the
remaining respondents. In doing so, the Commission
effectively answered the very question which was yet
to be adjudicated. Having itself observed that the
liability arising from deficiency in service are yet to
be determined, it could not have simultaneously
concluded that the alleged deficiency was
attributable only to Respondent No. 1 and therefore
no complaint could proceed against the rest.
13. The question that fell for consideration while
deciding the interlocutory applications was not
whether Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were liable. The
question was whether, in the absence of any
moratorium operating in their favour, the consumer
complaint could proceed against them. In the
absence of any such statutory bar, the Commission
was required to adjudicate the complaint against the
said respondents and determine, upon consideration
of the rival pleadings and objections, whether any
liability could ultimately be fastened upon them. It
was not open to the Commission to foreclose that
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 8

inquiry at the interlocutory stage. The impugned
order cannot be sustained as it declines to undertake
the said exercise.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
urged that this Court may proceed to allow the
consumer complaint and grant the reliefs claimed
therein. We are unable to accede to that submission.
The respondents have raised several objections,
including absence of privity of contract,
maintainability of the complaint and the absence of
any independent obligation under the agreements.
Since all the objections are yet to be decided by the
NCDRC, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
undertake that exercise for the first time in the
present appeal. Thus, we refrain from expressing any
opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the
impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeals
are partly allowed.
16. Accordingly, we set aside the rejection of I.A.
No. 15656 of 2024 and I.A. No. 14200 of 2024. The
said applications are hereby allowed. The NCDRC
shall proceed to hear the Consumer Complaint No.13
of 2023.
17. Needless to clarify, the proceedings against
Respondent No.1 shall continue to remain governed
C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 9

by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The
NCDRC shall dispose of the complaint, insofar as
Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, in accordance
with law.


……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 27, 2026




C.A.Nos.4289-4290 OF 2025 10