M/S Propcare Developers Private Limited Vs Mr Shane Miranda

M/S PROPCARE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT., LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING OFFICE AT C-5 , RICH HOMES NO. 5/1, RICHMOND ROAA KARANTAKA, INDIA 560 025.

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI SUSHIL MANTRI S/O PANDURANGA MANTRI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT 41 LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001

¶14

(BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR SHANE MIRANDA ANTHONY MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. PH-A-1307 POWER (A) MANTRI WEBCITY K R PURAM, HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 077

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45152-DB WP No. 28854 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MRS. NATASHA MIRANDA W/O SHANE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. PH-A-1307 POWER (A) MANTRI WEBCITY K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 077

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE IN TO THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN EXECUTION APPLICATION No.905/2023 IN CC No.3854/2017 PENING BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI IN SO FAR AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE PRESENT PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/ M/s. Propcare Developers Private Limited Formerly known as M/s. Mantri Developers Private Limited and Another (for brevity 'the Developers' ) impugning the order dated 22.01.2025 passed

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45152-DB WP No. 28854 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for brevity 'the NCDRC' ) in Execution Application No.905/2023 in Consumer Complaint No. 3854/2017.

¶32

The respondents, who had booked a Flat being developed by the petitioner, filed the consumer complaint before the NCDRC praying for refund of the amount deposited by them along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The construction agreement for the "Mantri Webcity" Flats, which was entered into between the Developer and the Flat buyers was dated 11.09.2013 and date of possession was mentioned as 31.01.2015.

¶33

Despite a long delay after the date of possession as mentioned in the construction agreement and when the Flat buyers found that there was no scope for them to get possession of their respective Flat, the Flat buyers filed consumer complaint before the NCDRC. After pleadings got completed and affidavits were filed before the National Commission by the Developer that the completion certificate was obtained on 29.05.2017 and possession would be delivered to the flat buyers. Based thereon,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45152-DB WP No. 28854 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the National Commission passed an order for payment of compensation for delayed possession for the period from 02.02.2015 to 02.06.2017 at the rate of 6% p.a. It appears that the flat buyers have been given possession, but without any water connection. Therefore, the complainants have filed the execution petition and till today, the developer has not been able to provide water connection to the complainant's flat.

¶37

Subsequently, NCDRC has passed the order dated 22.01.2025, which would suggest that the Developer has clearly undertaken that water connection would be provided within 4 months from 21.11.2022. Despite this undertaking before the NCDRC, till today the water connections have not been provided. The NCDRC observed on 09.04.2025 that there is non-compliance of the judgment and further gave an opportunity to the judgment debtors to provide regular water connection within 3 weeks from 09.04.2025, failing which, action against the key managerial persons of the developers shall be taken under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45152-DB WP No. 28854 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

As the Developer failed to provide the water connection as directed by the NCDRC way back on 21.11.2022 and despite the order dated 09.04.2025, another order dated 28.07.2025 came to be passed directing the personal presence of Mr. Sushil Mantri/Judgment Debtor No. 2.

¶41

This order of personal presence as directed by the National Commission is under challenge.

¶42

In these circumstances, we do not find that NCDRC has committed any error of law or jurisdiction, which requires interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction and Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶43

We find no merit in this writ petition, accordingly, it is

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶47

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

M/S Propcare Developers Private Limited v. Mr Shane Miranda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Propcare Developers Private Limited v. Mr Shane Miranda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of India Vs Smt. M K Pravanakshi

V. U. Shankar Vs Syndicate Bank

N N Mahadeva Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Mamatha G C Vs State of Karnataka

The Additional District Registrar Vs Sri. Mahamad Hifzur Rahaman

Sri. Nagaraj. H. S. Vs the Commissioner