Ritesh Mani: Court Records, Business Disputes and My Experience

Introduction

Ritesh Mani is a New Zealand businessman who has been associated with property development and several business ventures, including Eco-Smart Homes and Tribeca Homes.

Over the years, the name Ritesh Mani has appeared in New Zealand court records, government notices and established media reporting concerning property development, creditors, homeowners, companies and business disputes.

This article brings together those publicly available records with my own firsthand experience working as a contractor for a company associated with Mani in 2026.

The purpose is to create a documented and balanced record. Court findings, official government records, media-reported allegations and my personal experience are identified separately rather than presented as though they are all the same type of evidence.

Important disclaimer: This article does not claim that every allegation reported about Ritesh Mani has been proven. Where allegations or disputed claims are discussed, they are attributed to the relevant source. Readers should review the underlying court judgment, government records, media reports and contractual documents themselves.

Who is Ritesh Mani?

Ritesh Mani is a New Zealand businessman who has been associated with property development and other commercial ventures.

His business history has included involvement with Eco-Smart Homes and Tribeca Homes, both of which have received media attention in New Zealand.

In 2024, Stuff/RNZ reported on complaints from homeowners connected with an Eco-Smart Homes development in Helensville. The report described homeowner concerns about construction delays, incomplete work and disputed infrastructure costs, while also reporting Mani's response and his explanation that the project had suffered serious setbacks.

In 2025, the New Zealand Herald reported that parts of the Eco-Smart group had entered liquidation and that Mani had said he had stopped trading in the real estate sector. The Herald also reported on the group's financial difficulties and earlier business history.

More recently, Ritesh Mani was personally involved in a High Court proceeding concerning an obligation connected with Eco-Smart Group, formerly known as ASCCN (21) Limited.

My experience working with Ritesh Mani

In June 2026, I entered into a written service agreement with Acendia International LLC, a company associated with Ritesh Mani.

Under that agreement, I was engaged as a Business Development Manager.

The role was broader than simply making sales calls. My responsibilities included business development, sales operations, recruitment support, website and asset development, coordination with development teams, SOP creation, workflow implementation, client onboarding, project monitoring, reporting and operational improvements.

The agreement also established a fixed contractor fee and a payment process for services rendered.

During my engagement, I performed work across these areas, including business-development activities, sales operations, websites, marketing assets, workflows, lead-generation processes and other operational infrastructure.

I am documenting this experience because the relationship eventually developed into a contractual dispute concerning payment, performance expectations and termination.

My account represents my own experience and position in that dispute. It should not be confused with the court findings or third-party reporting discussed elsewhere in this article.

The Ritesh Mani contractor payment dispute

The relationship eventually deteriorated over payment and expectations concerning business results.

I raised concerns about an outstanding contractor payment and relied on the written terms of the agreement.

My position was that the agreement established a fixed contractor fee and a payment schedule for services rendered.

Ritesh Mani's position was different. He maintained that payment was connected to performance and business results and subsequently disputed whether the work performed had generated sufficient commercial value.

The disagreement escalated after I formally requested payment.

I subsequently received written notice terminating my engagement immediately.

The explanation provided was that the business had generated no sales or revenue attributed to my work and that I had not met the primary purpose of the role.

It was also alleged that I had stopped performing duties and withheld services.

I dispute that characterization.

My position was that I had performed substantial work under the agreement and that, after raising the payment dispute, I suspended new work while seeking a resolution.

The central issue is therefore not simply whether the business generated sales. It is a contractual disagreement concerning the scope of services, performance expectations, payment obligations and termination.

What the contract says

The written agreement provides important context for understanding the dispute.

The agreement describes the Business Development Manager's responsibilities as including business growth and revenue generation, while also covering sales and operations functions, recruitment support, SOP development, workflow implementation, website development, client onboarding, reporting and operational improvement.

The agreement therefore contains both revenue-related responsibilities and broader operational responsibilities.

The payment provisions establish the contractor fee and the process for payment for services rendered.

The termination provisions also address outstanding payments for services rendered through the termination date.

For that reason, the contract itself is an important primary document when considering the dispute.

The contractual terms should be considered alongside the actual work performed, written communications between the parties and the circumstances surrounding termination.

Ritesh Mani and the Eco-Smart High Court judgment

My 2026 contractor dispute with Ritesh Mani is separate from earlier New Zealand proceedings involving companies associated with him.

However, those proceedings are matters of public record and are relevant to anyone researching Ritesh Mani's business history.

One of the most significant records is:

Fletcher Distribution Ltd trading as PlaceMakers Auckland West Hub v ASCCN (21) Ltd and Ritesh Mani [2025] NZHC 3639.

The judgment was issued by the High Court of New Zealand on 27 November 2025. It identifies ASCCN (21) Limited as formerly known as Eco-Smart Group Limited.

According to the judgment, Ritesh Mani had been a director of Eco-Smart and had personally guaranteed obligations associated with a credit account with Fletcher Distribution.

The proceeding concerned an outstanding amount of NZ$750,368.02.

The judgment records arguments made by Mani concerning the scope and enforceability of the personal guarantee, including his position that he had been told the guarantee would not be enforced and was limited to NZ$100,000.

The Court rejected those arguments.

The Court concluded that the guarantee was clear and unlimited and entered judgment against Mani for NZ$750,368.02, together with applicable interest and solicitor-client costs.

This distinction is important.

The NZ$750,368.02 liability is not merely a media allegation. It is a matter determined in a New Zealand High Court judgment.

Ritesh Mani and Eco-Smart Homes

Another part of the public record concerns Eco-Smart Homes and complaints from homeowners.

In August 2024, RNZ published reporting based on Stuff's investigation into homeowners in Helensville who said their properties had been delayed, delivered unfinished or accompanied by additional costs.

The report identified Ritesh Mani as the director of Eco-Smart Homes and presented accounts from several homeowners.

However, the report also included Mani's response.

Mani said the Helensville development had experienced serious setbacks, including what he described as a builder stealing more than NZ$300,000 before leaving the country. He also attributed delays to other circumstances affecting the project.

The reporting therefore contains competing accounts.

Homeowners made allegations and described their experiences, while Mani disputed aspects of those claims and provided explanations for the project's difficulties.

That distinction matters when discussing the Ritesh Mani business record.

An allegation reported by a news organization should not automatically be presented as an established fact unless a court or other authoritative body has made such a finding.

Eco-Smart Homes and later financial difficulties

The New Zealand Herald reported in February 2025 that parts of the Eco-Smart group had entered liquidation.

The Herald reported that five companies within the group had entered liquidation and that the group had faced complaints from clients and claims from subcontractors.

The article also discussed Mani's earlier business history, including Tribeca Homes and previous insolvency proceedings.

Again, these matters should be understood according to the source reporting them and the underlying records rather than reduced to a single characterization.

Ritesh Mani and Tribeca Homes

Ritesh Mani was also associated with Tribeca Homes.

New Zealand media reporting has documented the company's financial difficulties and complaints from customers following its collapse.

The New Zealand Herald reported that Mani worked for Tribeca Homes as a senior salesperson and discussed the company's failure and outstanding obligations to creditors.

The Herald's reporting is relevant historical context when researching the name Ritesh Mani, but individual claims reported in journalism should still be distinguished from formal court findings.

Where a court has made a finding, that finding should be identified as such.

Where a newspaper reports an allegation, the allegation should remain attributed to the source.

The 2016 New Zealand Government prohibition notice

There is also an official New Zealand Government record concerning Ritesh Mani.

A New Zealand Gazette notice dated 22 June 2016 states that Ritesh Mani was prohibited under section 385 of the Companies Act 1993 from being a director or promoter of, or being concerned in or taking part in the management of, a company for a period of three years and six months.

This is an official government notice.

It is therefore materially different from an anonymous internet claim or an unverified social-media post.

For anyone conducting due diligence on Ritesh Mani, primary government records such as this are more useful than repeating unsupported online allegations.

What the public record shows

When the available records are considered together, several distinct categories of information emerge.

1. Court findings

The High Court of New Zealand entered judgment against Ritesh Mani in the Fletcher Distribution proceeding for NZ$750,368.02, together with interest and costs.

2. Government records

The New Zealand Gazette published an official 2016 notice prohibiting Mani from company management for three years and six months under section 385 of the Companies Act 1993.

3. Media reporting

Established New Zealand media organizations have reported on Eco-Smart Homes, homeowner complaints, company liquidations, Tribeca Homes and other aspects of Mani's business history. Those reports include allegations, responses and contextual information.

4. My firsthand experience

My 2026 experience concerns a separate contractual relationship with Acendia International LLC and a dispute over payment, performance expectations and termination.

These four categories should not be conflated.

A court judgment is different from a media allegation.

A government notice is different from a personal opinion.

And my personal experience is different from a judicial finding.

Why I am publishing this article

I am publishing this article because business disputes can disappear into private email conversations unless the parties maintain a clear documentary record.

My experience with Ritesh Mani resulted in a contractual dispute involving services, payment, performance expectations and termination.

Separately, public records show previous legal and business matters involving Mani and companies with which he has been associated.

I am not asking readers to accept my account simply because I wrote it.

I am asking readers to examine the available documents.

Read the contract.

Read the High Court judgment.

Read the New Zealand Gazette notice.

Read the established media reports.

Then make your own assessment.

What I would tell contractors and business professionals

My experience has changed how I approach contractor agreements.

Before beginning work for any founder, executive or company, I would recommend documenting the following:

Exact scope of services
Fixed fees and payment dates
Performance expectations
Whether compensation is conditional on revenue
Specific sales targets and KPIs
Termination provisions
Notice periods
Ownership of work product
Access to company systems
Handover requirements
Governing law
Dispute-resolution procedures

Most importantly, commercial expectations should not depend solely on verbal promises.

If an engagement matters financially or professionally, put the important terms in writing.

The record matters

The name Ritesh Mani has appeared in New Zealand business reporting, government notices and court proceedings over a number of years.

My own 2026 contractor dispute is only one part of that broader record.

The purpose of this article is not to encourage harassment, make unsupported accusations or apply a sensational label to an individual.

It is to distinguish between what can be verified, what has been reported, what has been alleged and what I personally experienced.

Some matters described above are court findings.

Some are official government records.

Some are media reports containing allegations and responses.

Others are my firsthand account supported by contractual and written records.

Those categories should remain separate.

For anyone searching for information about Ritesh Mani, that distinction is important.

Sources and further reading

New Zealand High Court: Fletcher Distribution Ltd trading as PlaceMakers Auckland West Hub v ASCCN (21) Ltd and Ritesh Mani [2025] NZHC 3639.
New Zealand Gazette: 22 June 2016 notice concerning Ritesh Mani under section 385 of the Companies Act 1993.
RNZ / Stuff: Reporting concerning Eco-Smart Homes and homeowner complaints in Helensville, including responses from Ritesh Mani.
New Zealand Herald: Reporting concerning Eco-Smart Homes, company liquidations and Mani's business history.
Author's records: Written contractor agreement, correspondence, work records and communications relating to the author's 2026 engagement.

Last updated: September 2026

Editorial note: This article should be updated if new court judgments, official records or material corrections become available.