On August 10, 2026, a consumer complaint was formally lodged by homebuyers Nikhil Mehta and Mahaveer Kumar Mehta against Gardenview Abode Private Limited, formerly known as Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., in Bengaluru. The legal action centers on allegations of severe service deficiency and failure to deliver a residential apartment booked under the project title “Mantri Blossom.” Official records show that the complainants paid a substantial sum of Rs. 2,13,08,983 in June 2016 to secure Unit B902 within the development.
The dispute stems from a decade-long saga of delayed construction and unmet commitments by the builder. According to reports, the buyers initially approached the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in December 2023 to seek statutory remedies under Section 18 of the RERA Act. Despite previous regulatory interventions, the developers have allegedly failed to comply with statutory directives, prompting the latest round of legal scrutiny.
Latest developments indicate that the legal conflict has escalated due to subsequent financial distress surrounding the real estate project. Official data shows that the property underwent SARFAESI possession on June 21, 2024, following financial defaults by the builder. Furthermore, the complainants state that the developer issued unlawful financial demands in September 2025, compounding the ongoing grievances regarding non-compliance with earlier RERA rulings.
Legal representatives for the homebuyers argue that this new consumer complaint does not constitute re-litigation of previous RERA proceedings. Instead, the current filing arises from independent and subsequent causes of action, including unfair trade practices and continuous service deficiencies. The plaintiffs maintain that the Doctrine of Election does not apply, as the new grievances stem from actions and financial seizures occurring long after the initial regulatory complaints were filed.
This case highlights persistent regulatory challenges within the urban housing sector and the financial vulnerabilities faced by property buyers. Industry analysts note that overlapping jurisdiction between consumer forums and real estate authorities remains a critical issue for project execution and buyer protection. The outcome of this proceeding could set a vital legal precedent regarding how independent subsequent causes of action are handled alongside existing regulatory orders.
Legal experts and aggrieved investors will closely monitor upcoming hearings to observe how the consumer forum addresses the maintainability of complaints following SARFAESI proceedings. Observers will also track whether the developer faces strict penalties for alleged non-compliance with statutory directives and unlawful demands. Further updates are expected as the tribunal reviews the arguments concerning continuing deficiency in service.
Disclaimer: This article is published for general news and informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to verify important information from official sources. The publisher shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience arising from reliance on the information published.
