The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on Wednesday delivered a significant ruling in a case related to homebuyer grievances against Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited (AHTTL).
The Commission has lifted the corporate veil between AHTTL and its parent company Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (APIL), finding the subsidiary to be merely a front company, yet simultaneously declined to extend personal liability to APIL‘s directors. The bench has also issued non-bailable arrest warrants against eight directors of the defaulting company.
On April 8, 2026, a bench comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member, issued direct notice to the current Chairman Pranav Ansal and Managing Director / CEO of APIL and Abdul Sami, Company Secretary of APIL (in their official capacity) to enter appearance before this Commission on behalf of APIL.
“We have held that the current Managing Director / CEO of APIL is also liable for action under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, we hereby issue notice to the current Managing Director / Chief Executive officer of APIL, to Show Cause why action under section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 should not be taken against him,” the bench noted.
The bench, in this matter, consolidated 70 execution applications arising from three original consumer complaints, all filed against AHTTL for its failure to refund amounts paid by homebuyers (decree holders) for plots in its ambitious “Sushant Megapolis” project in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
The primary issue before NCDRC was how and to what extent the directors, key managerial personnel (KMPs), promoters, and shareholders of the parent company APIL could be held liable for execution of consumer decrees passed against its subsidiary, AHTTL and whether the corporate veil between a parent and subsidiary company could be lifted in execution proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Lifting the Corporate Veil
Perhaps the most closely watched aspect of the ruling concerned whether the Commission would pierce the corporate veil between AHTTL (the subsidiary) and APIL (the parent) and thereby expose APIL’s promoters, including former Chairman Pranav Ansal, to personal liability.Decree holders argued that APIL exercises both de facto and de jure control over AHTTL. They submitted written compilations showing that APIL had issued a legal termination notice on its own letterhead on August 2, 2024, asserting its right to “take over, control, develop, alienate, and deal with the project land, bank accounts, records, and affairs of Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd.”
The decree holders contended that “the person who controls assets and cash flows cannot disclaim responsibility for satisfaction of a money decree by taking shelter behind corporate layering.”
The bench found the parent company and the judgment debtor company to be inextricably connected and that the two have been working under the overall control and advice of the Chairman and Whole Time Director of APIL- Mr. Pranav Ansal.
“JD Company ( AHTTL) is nothing but a front Company of its Parent Company APIL, formed as SPV for execution of the project in question. This corporate structure of Parent and Subsidiary company being two different legal entitles is being misused to avoid satisfaction of decrees in the present cases. Hence, we hold that DH(s) in the present cases have been successful in making a case for lifting the corporate veil between the JD Company ( AHTTL) and Parent Company (APIL) in the present cases,” the bench noted further.
Pranav Ansal, who appeared in person along with counsel, countered that he had “never held any shares or post in any manner whatsoever in the JD company AHTTL, nor has ever controlled/managed the affairs of AHTTL. He has not drawn a single penny from the coffers of AHTTL.”
He also noted that he himself had been admitted into personal insolvency under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code vide NCLT order dated August 28, 2024, and that APIL’s moratorium, though now restricted to certain projects, was still operative in some capacity.
The Commission, while not foreclosing the issue entirely, held that even if the corporate veil were to be lifted and APIL held liable, “the directors/key managerial personnel of a parent company APIL of the judgment debtor company AHTTL… cannot be personally held liable for satisfaction of the decree against the judgment debtor subsidiary company and their personal assets cannot be attached.”
The Commission further noted that fresh analysis on the corporate veil question and the liability of APIL’s directors under Section 72 remains to be adjudicated in subsequent hearings.
Can Directors Be Held Criminally Liable?
At the heart of the legal dispute before the Commission were Section 71 (civil enforcement of decrees) and Section 72 (penal consequences for non-compliance) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling dated January 12, 2026 in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association Regd. v. Ms Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., the directors of APIL including former Vice-Chairman Pranav Ansal argued that directors who were never parties to the original consumer complaint cannot be held personally liable for satisfying the decree.
The Supreme Court had held: “Execution proceedings cannot, therefore, be permitted to continue indirectly against the respondents, who are neither judgment debtors nor guarantors, and against whom no independent liability under the order allowing the complaints has been established.”
While NCDRC agreed with this position in part, it held:
“A careful reading of the judgment dated 12.01.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above shows that if the directors/key managerial personnel of a company were not parties in the original consumer complaints and/or there were no specific directions against them in the original decree, they cannot be held personally liable for satisfaction of the decree… However, this judgment does not prohibit action against the directors/key managerial personnel of the company under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019… which are the penal provisions for non-compliance of orders of the Commission by the company.”
Therefore personal assets of directors cannot be attached under Section 71, but criminal proceedings for defying Commission orders can still be initiated against them under Section 72.
The disputes trace back to orders passed by the NCDRC itself, directing AHTTL to refund the entire principal amount paid by allottees along with simple interest at 8 percent per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund, plus INR 50,000 as litigation costs, all within three months.
A subsequent order in 2022 directed refunds with a higher compensation rate of 12 percent per annum and finally rose to 15 percent penal interest for the period of delay.
AHTTL, however, did not comply. As execution petitions piled up over the years, the Commission issued recovery certificates to district collectors under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, attaching bank accounts and even directing attachment warrants under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
The Commission’s order noted that “the non-compliance by the JD company AHTTL of various earlier orders of this Commission is wilful, as they have been given repeated opportunities.” Directors of AHTTL, despite bailable and eventually non-bailable warrants, stopped appearing before the Commission. The Registry reported that hearing notices were being returned from directors with postal remarks “item returned refused.”
Acting on this finding, the Commission directed the issuance of non-bailable arrest warrants against all eight directors and key managerial personnel of AHTTL who had stopped appearing.
The Commission also directed freezing of all bank accounts of AHTTL and prohibited the company from creating any third-party rights or dealing with its movable or immovable properties till further orders.
The arguments on behalf of the homebuyers on the abovementioned issues were led by Pranjal Mishra, Adv. and Ishita Singh, Adv. – Partners at S&M Advocates.
