- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27306-DB WP No. 21477 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 21477 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SUSHIL MANTRI S/O PANDURANGA MANTRI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT 41, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. JAITHRA J. NARAYAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHANE MIRANDA S/O ANTHONY MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. MRS. NATASHA MIRANDA W/O SHANE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.PH-A-1307 Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27306-DB WP No. 21477 of 2025 TOWER(A) MANTRI WEBCITY K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560077. 3. MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING OFFICE AT C-5, RICH HOMES, NO.5/1, RICHMOND ROAD, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 560025 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 09/07/2025 EA 905/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2025 EA 905/2023 AT ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27306-DB WP No. 21477 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. Under challenge is an order dated 02.07.2025 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Execution Application No.905 of 2023 in Consumer Complaint No.3854 of 2017 (Shane Miranda vs. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another). By means of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to personally appear on a subsequent date. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is no longer a Director of the Company concerned and therefore, he cannot be summoned by the Executing Court. Learned counsel has sought to refer to the Director Master Information Sheet dated 15.04.2025 to endeavor to demonstrate that the petitioner had indeed resigned from the post of the Director. 4. Be that as it may, evidently and admittedly, the name of the petitioner appears in the decree that is sought to be executed. Previously, an identical submission made on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27306-DB WP No. 21477 of 2025 behalf of the petitioner before the Executing Court was rejected by means of an order dated 22.01.2025. That order of 22.01.2025 has not been challenged by the petitioner. 5. Under the circumstances, the instant petition is completely misconceived. We see no reason to interfere in the matter. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28