Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.), is an association of flat buyers who entered into individual builder–buyer (Flat Buyer) Agreements with M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (ACIPL) for apartments in the project “Ansal Crown Heights.” Under these agreements, ACIPL promised to hand over possession of the apartments within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreements. The committed period for possession expired for all buyers between December 2013 and December 2015.
As ACIPL failed to deliver possession, the appellant filed two consumer complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): the first on 10 January 2018 (CC/86/2018, on behalf of 45 flat buyers), and the second on 26 November 2018 (CC/2600/2018, on behalf of 20 flat buyers). The respondents included ACIPL and its directors/promoters (respondents 2 to 9).
While admitting CC/86/2018, the NCDRC by order dated 25 January 2018 consciously directed that the proceedings would continue only against ACIPL as respondent no. 1, declined to issue notice to respondents 2 to 9 (directors/promoters), and required the appellant to amend the memo of parties accordingly. Subsequently, CC/2600/2018 was filed with ACIPL as the sole respondent, in conformity with this admission order. That order was never challenged and attained finality.
On 28 February 2022, the NCDRC allowed both complaints and directed ACIPL to complete the project, obtain the occupancy certificate, and hand over possession of the flats to the allottees with interest at 9% per annum on the deposited amounts from the committed date of possession until the offer of possession. Alternatively, allottees unwilling to wait were entitled to a refund of the entire amount with interest at 9% per annum, payable within six weeks, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply for the period of default.
Due to non-compliance by ACIPL, the appellant initiated execution proceedings. In the meantime, a corporate insolvency resolution process was commenced against ACIPL under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and a moratorium under Section 14 came into force. On 18 May 2023, NCDRC adjourned the execution proceedings sine die, including as against the directors, holding that since ACIPL could not be proceeded against due to the moratorium, it would not be appropriate to continue the execution against opposite party nos. 2 to 9, particularly as they were not parties in the main complaint. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the National Company Law Tribunal altered, modified, or vacated its order, or finally decided the insolvency proceedings.
The appellant challenged this sine die adjournment before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4247, 4480 and 4481 of 2023. By order dated 17 January 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order, holding that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC shields only the corporate debtor and does not extend to directors/promoters. The Court directed that execution may continue against respondents 2 to 9, with liberty to them to raise all objections, including pleas of non-liability and issues of executability against them.
Upon revival, the appellant pressed the execution applications against respondents 2 to 9. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20 June 2024, the NCDRC dismissed the execution applications insofar as they sought to proceed against respondents 2 to 9, holding that the order was executable only against ACIPL, the sole respondent in the original complaints. The present lead civil appeals (Nos. 8465–8466 of 2024) challenge that decision. Other connected civil appeals (Nos. 8539, 10874–10877 & 10878 of 2024) involving similar questions of fact and law were heard together.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether persons who were initially arrayed as respondents in the consumer complaints, but against whom no notice was issued and against whom the complaints did not proceed, can nevertheless be subjected to execution proceedings solely on the basis that they are directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company (ACIPL).
- Whether the NCDRC’s view that the execution order is enforceable only against ACIPL, the sole respondent in the complaints, and not against its directors/promoters, warrants interference by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, (2022) 14 SCC 609 |
It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree; the decree must be executed as it is, though the executing court may construe the decree. |
The Court applied this principle to hold that since the judgments in CC/86/2018 and CC/2600/2018 were passed only against ACIPL, the execution could not be extended to respondents 2 to 9, who were not parties to the decree and against whom no liability was adjudicated. |
| Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P., (1999) 4 SCC 458 |
A clear distinction must be drawn between a company and its shareholders; a company registered under the Companies Act is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders, even if there is only one shareholder and that shareholder is the Government. |
The Court relied on this distinction to reinforce that ACIPL, as a corporate entity, is distinct from its directors/promoters, and that their personal liability cannot be presumed merely because they are associated with the company, in the absence of specific adjudication or guarantees. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by noting that at the admission stage of CC/86/2018, the NCDRC had consciously admitted the complaint only against ACIPL and declined to issue notice to the directors/promoters (respondents 2 to 9). It specifically directed amendment of the memo of parties to make ACIPL the sole respondent, and this order was never challenged. Thereafter, proceedings in both complaints continued on this basis alone.
The Court emphasized that no pleadings were directed to be filed against respondents 2 to 9, no issues were framed as to their liability, and no findings were recorded against them at any stage. The lis was consciously and finally confined to ACIPL, and the resulting adjudication led to an order binding exclusively ACIPL. The order neither determined liability of respondents 2 to 9 nor directed them to do or refrain from doing any act. Consequently, the essential foundation for fastening liability on them was absent.
Applying the settled principle from Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, the Court reiterated that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must execute it as it stands. A decree cannot be used in execution to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were not parties to the decree or otherwise legally liable under it. In the context of a company as judgment debtor, the liability of shareholders or joint venture partners is generally confined to their shareholding or to any guarantees or undertakings they have expressly furnished.
The Court found that the appellant had neither pleaded nor shown that respondents 2 to 9 had furnished any guarantee or surety in respect of the project investments, nor produced material to attract Section 14(3) of the IBC. Thus, there was no independent legal basis to treat them as guarantors or otherwise personally liable.
The Court further observed that once a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC is declared against the judgment-debtor company (ACIPL), the execution modes under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019—such as attachment and sale of property, attachment of bank accounts, or withdrawal of decretal amounts from ACIPL’s accounts—are interdicted. Execution cannot be allowed to continue indirectly against respondents 2 to 9, who are neither judgment debtors nor guarantors and against whom no independent liability under the NCDRC’s orders has been established.
Invoking Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd., the Court underscored the distinction between a company and its shareholders, holding that this separate corporate personality must be respected. It then agreed with the NCDRC’s approach that the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a complete adjudicatory process—including service of notice, pleadings, opportunity to contest, evidence, and findings of fact and law—before liability is fastened. These are substantive safeguards, not mere formalities.
In this case, no adjudicatory exercise was undertaken in respect of respondents 2 to 9: there were no pleadings alleging personal roles, no evidence establishing individual culpability, and no findings fixing personal liability. Execution proceedings therefore could not be converted into a “surrogate forum” to impose liability where none had been adjudicated.
The Court held that the doctrine of piercing or lifting the corporate veil was inapplicable on the facts. Lifting the corporate veil is an exceptional measure, justified only upon a clear finding that the corporate structure has been abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes, based on specific pleadings and a merits determination. Here, no such allegation of fraud or misuse of the corporate form was pleaded or established before the adjudicatory forum; absent a prior reasoned determination warranting disregard of the corporate personality, directors/promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability through execution.
Addressing the appellant’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 17 January 2024, the Court noted that the earlier order dealt with a limited question: whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against ACIPL barred continuation of execution proceedings against directors/promoters. That order held that the moratorium did not, by itself, preclude execution against directors/officers, provided they were otherwise liable, and clarified that respondents 2 to 9 could raise contentions that they were not bound to implement the order, with the NCDRC to decide their liability in accordance with law.
The Court explained that the earlier order did not declare any personal liability of respondents 2 to 9; it merely removed the moratorium-related impediment and left the issue of their liability to be determined by the NCDRC. Viewed in this light, the impugned NCDRC order, which examined executability against respondents 2 to 9 on its merits and declined to proceed against them for want of legal or factual basis for personal liability, was not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s prior directions.
Ultimately, the Court held that the NCDRC committed no error of law or jurisdiction in declining to execute the order against persons who were not parties to the complaints and against whom no liability had been adjudicated. The order binds only ACIPL. The appellant, having not challenged the NCDRC’s order dated 25 January 2018 (which confined the complaint to ACIPL and excluded respondents 2 to 9), could not now enlarge the scope of that order at the execution stage.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court held that execution of the NCDRC’s orders in CC/86/2018 and CC/2600/2018 cannot proceed against respondents 2 to 9 (directors/promoters of ACIPL), as they were not parties to the adjudicated complaints and no liability was determined against them. The decree is executable only against ACIPL, the corporate judgment debtor. Accordingly, the lead civil appeals were DISMISSED, and the connected civil appeals (Nos. 8539, 10874–10877 & 10878 of 2024), involving similar questions of fact and law, were also DISMISSED. There was no order as to costs.
Implications: The immediate consequence is that the appellant cannot utilize the pending execution proceedings to enforce the NCDRC’s orders against ACIPL’s directors/promoters in their personal capacity. Execution under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in respect of these decrees, remains confined to ACIPL, subject to the constraints imposed by the IBC moratorium. However, the Court expressly clarified that dismissal of these appeals does not preclude the appellant from pursuing any other remedies available in law against the promoters/directors, including proceedings under the Companies Act, the IBC, or civil law, provided the statutory requirements for such actions are satisfied.
Show full summary ...