ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.)versusM/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS.

                   [2026] 1 S.C.R. 580 : 2026 INSC 51

     Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.)
                              v.
         M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 8465-8466 of 2024)
                                12 January 2026
       [Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to whether persons who were arrayed as
       respondents in the consumer complaints but ultimately against
       whom no notice was issued and the complaints did not proceed,
       could be brought within the net of execution, on the premise that
       they were directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company.

                                    Headnotes†
       Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.71 – Insolvency and
       Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.14(3) – Enforcement of orders
       of District Commission, State Commission and National
       Commission – Execution proceedings – Consumer complaints
       by the flat buyers against the builders for possession of the
       flats, allowed and builders directed to complete the project –
       Non-compliance of the order by the builder – Initiation of
       execution proceedings – Meanwhile corporate insolvency
       resolution process initiated against the builder and moratorium
       came into force – Persons arrayed as respondents in the
       consumer complaints by the flat buyers but against whom
       no notice was issued and the complaints did not proceed, if
       could be brought within the net of execution, on the premise
       that they were directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor
       company:
       Held: Decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift
       or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties
       to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder – Where the
       judgment debtor is a company, the liability of its shareholders or joint
       venture partners remains confined to the extent of their shareholding
       or to such guarantees or undertakings as may have been expressly
       furnished by them – On facts, the appellant-association of flat


* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                              581

        Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v.
              M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

     buyers neither pleaded nor established that the respondents 2 to
     9-directors/promoters had furnished any guarantee or surety in
     respect of the investment made in the project, nor has any material
     been placed on record to attract the application of s.14(3) – Once
     a moratorium has been declared against the judgment debtor
     company-ACIPL, the modes of execution contemplated u/s.71
     including attachment and sale of movable or immovable property,
     attachment of bank accounts, or withdrawal of decretal amounts
     from the accounts of the judgment debtor, stand interdicted –
     Execution proceedings cannot, thus, be permitted to continue
     indirectly against the respondents 2 to 9, who are neither judgment
     debtors nor guarantors, and against whom no independent liability
     under the order allowing the complaints has been established – CP
     Act envisages a complete adjudicatory process founded on service
     of notice, pleadings, opportunity to contest, leading of evidence, and
     recorded findings of fact and law – These are not mere procedural
     formalities but substantive safeguards that precede the fastening
     of liability – No such adjudicatory exercise was undertaken qua
     the respondents 2 to 9 – No pleadings attributing any personal
     role to them, no evidence led to establish individual culpability,
     and no findings returned fixing personal liability – In the absence
     of these foundational elements, execution proceedings cannot
     be utilised as a surrogate forum to impose liability where none
     has been adjudicated – Invocation of the doctrine of piercing the
     corporate veil wholly unwarranted – Lifting of the corporate veil
     is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear
     finding that the corporate personality was abused for fraudulent or
     dishonest purposes – Such a finding must be preceded by specific
     pleadings and a determination on merits – No such allegation
     of fraud or misuse of the corporate form was either pleaded or
     established before the adjudicatory forum – In the absence of
     a prior and reasoned determination justifying disregard of the
     corporate personality, the directors/promoters cannot be exposed
     to personal liability through execution – NCDRC committed no
     error of law or jurisdiction in declining to execute the order against
     persons who were admittedly not parties to the complaints – Order
     binds only ACIPL – Appellant did not challenge the order of the
     NCDRC declining to issue notice to the respondents 2 to 9 and
     directing it to file amended memo of party with ACIPL as the sole
     respondent, and cannot now enlarge the order through execution.
     [Paras 13-15, 17, 18, 20-23]
582                                                             [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                                Case Law Cited
       Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan [2022] 16 SCR 932 : (2022) 14 SCC 609;
       Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt.
       of A.P.7 [1999] 2 SCR 1078 : (1999) 4 SCC 458 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Consumer Protection Act,
       2019; Companies Act 2013.

                               List of Keywords
       Consumer complaint; Notice; Execution; Directors/promoters;
       Judgment-debtor company; Enforcement of orders of District
       Commission, State Commission and National Commission;
       Execution proceedings; Flat buyers; Builders; Possession of
       flats; Initiation of execution proceedings; Corporate insolvency
       resolution process; Moratorium; Decree; Doctrine of piercing the
       corporate veil; Lifting of the corporate veil; Corporate personality;
       Adjudicatory forum.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 8465-8466
       of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2024 of the National
       Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in EA
       Nos. 27, and 28 of 2023
       With
       Civil Appeal No(s). 8539, 10874-10877, and 10878 of 2024

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Chandrachur Bhattacharyya,
       Sahil Tagotra.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Jayant Bhushan, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Advs., Sanjay Jain, Vikas
       Agarwal, Jayant Chawla, Sonam Sharma, Palaash S. Singhai,
       Kamakshi Singh Rao, Rahul Gupta, Sudarshan Singh Rawat,
       Vikas Aggarwal, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Sunny Sachin Rawat.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                           583

          Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v.
                M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

      Dipankar Datta, J.

      CIVIL APPEAL NOs.8465-8466 OF 2024
1.    The lead appeals call in question the judgment and order dated
      20th June, 20241 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
      Commission2 dismissing Execution Application Nos. 27/2023 and
      28/2023 filed by the appellant against the respondents 2 to 9 (directors/
      promoters of M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.3). Such applications
      arose from two final orders rendered by the NCDRC while deciding
      complaints lodged by the appellant bearing nos. CC/2600/2018 and
      CC/86/2018 respectively.

      FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2.    Appellant is an association of flat buyers which entered into Flat
      Buyer Agreements with ACIPL for units in Ansal Crown Heights. Vide
      individual builder buyer agreements, ACIPL promised to handover
      possession of the apartments within a period of 36 months from
      the date of execution of the agreements, which expired for all the
      buyers in the time period from December, 2013 - December, 2015.
      Possession of the flats not having been delivered, the appellant
      instituted two consumer complaints – the first on 10th, January 2018
      (on behalf of 45 flat buyers), and the second on 26th November, 2018
      (on behalf of 20 flat buyers). The respondents were ACIPL and its
      directors/promoters being the respondents 2 to 9.
3.    While admitting CC/86/2018, the NCDRC vide order dated 25th
      January, 2018 directed that the proceedings would continue only
      against ACIPL and not the respondents 2 to 9. Accordingly, the
      appellant was directed to file amended memo of party impleading
      ACIPL as the sole respondent.


1    impugned order
2    NCDRC
3    ACIPL
584                                                            [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


4.     Subsequently, CC/2600/2018 came to be lodged wherein ACIPL
       was arrayed as the sole respondent, in conformity with the earlier
       admission order.
5.     On 28th February, 2022, the complaints were allowed and directions
       were issued to ACIPL to complete the project; obtain the occupancy
       certificate; and hand over possession of the flats to the buyers,
       i.e., the allottees, with interest @ 9% per annum on the amounts
       deposited by them from the committed date of possession until the
       offer of possession or, alternatively, if the allottees were unwilling
       to wait for possession, ACIPL was directed to refund the entire
       amount deposited with interest @ 9% per annum, to be paid within
       six weeks, failing which interest @ 12% per annum would apply for
       the period of default.
6.     Owing to ACIPL not complying with the said order, the appellant
       initiated proceedings for execution. During this time, corporate
       insolvency resolution process having been initiated under the
       Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20164 against ACPIL, a moratorium
       had come into force. NCDRC, accordingly, vide order dated 18th
       May, 2023, adjourned proceedings sine die, including against the
       directors of ACPIL with the following observations:
            “ ... So far opposite party Nos.2 to 9 are concerned, they
            were not party in the main complaint. If the decree cannot
            be executed against opposite party No.1 due to moratorium
            under Section 14 of the IBC, it would not be appropriate to
            proceed in same execution against opposite party Nos.2 to
            9. In the light of order of National Company Law Tribunal,
            this Matter is adjourned sine die with liberty to the Parties
            to file an Application for listing of the Case in the event the
            National Company Law Tribunal alter, modify or vacates
            of the Order or decides the proceedings finally.”
7.     Appellant then challenged the sine die adjournment granted by the
       NCDRC by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 4247, 4480 and 4481 of 2023
       before this Court. The said appeals were allowed vide order dated
       17th January 2024, whereby the abovementioned order of the NCDRC
       was set aside. This Court directed that the execution proceedings may


4    IBC
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         585

        Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v.
              M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

     continue against the respondents 2 to 9, while granting them liberty
     to raise all available objections, including the plea that they were not
     liable to satisfy or implement the order sought to be executed. This
     Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC shields
     only the corporate debtor and does not extend to directors/promoters.
8.   Upon revival, the appellant pressed the execution applications
     against the respondents 2 to 9. As noted, the NCDRC dismissed the
     execution applications insofar as they sought to proceed against the
     respondents 2 to 9, holding that the order is executable only against
     ACIPL, the sole respondent in the original complaints.

     ISSUE
9.   The core controversy lies within a narrow compass. Question
     that arises is, can persons who were arrayed as respondents in
     the consumer complaints but ultimately against whom no notice
     was issued and the complaints did not proceed, could be brought
     within the net of execution, on the premise that they were directors/
     promoters of the judgment-debtor company. NCDRC has answered
     this question in the negative. We are called upon to decide whether
     such view warrants interference.

     ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
10. It is not in dispute that at the stage of admitting CC/86/2018, the
    NCDRC consciously admitted the complaint on 25th January, 2018
    only qua the respondent no. 1, namely ACIPL, while declining to
    issue notice to the directors and promoters. A specific direction was
    issued to amend the memo of parties accordingly, whereafter notice
    was issued only to ACIPL. The said order was never assailed and,
    therefore, attained finality.
11. Proceedings in the complaints thereafter continued on that basis
    alone. No pleadings were directed to be filed against, nor issues
    framed in relation to the directors or promoters, and no findings
    came to be recorded against them at any stage of the adjudicatory
    process. Once the lis stood consciously and finally confined to
    ACIPL, the adjudication culminated in an order binding exclusively
    ACIPL and none else. The order neither records any determination
    of liability against the respondents 2 to 9 nor contains any direction
    requiring them to perform or refrain from performing any act. In the
586                                                         [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       absence of pleadings, adjudication, or findings against them, the
       essential foundation for fastening liability upon the respondents 2
       to 9 is plainly lacking.
12. Since, the judgment and order in CC/86/2018 and CC/2600/2018
    had not been passed against the respondents 2 to 9, at the stage
    of execution, the order passed against ACIPL could not be enforced
    against them. It is settled law that execution must strictly conform
    to the decree. This principle has been reiterated in a catena of
    precedents. For the purpose of this discussion, we may profitably
    refer to Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan5 where this Court held that:
             “14. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go
             beyond the decree. The decree must be executed as it
             is. Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to
             construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree …”
13. It is trite that a decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed
    to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither
    parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder. Where
    the judgment debtor is a company, the liability of its shareholders
    or joint venture partners remains confined to the extent of their
    shareholding or to such guarantees or undertakings as may have
    been expressly furnished by them.
14. In the present case, the appellant has neither pleaded nor established
    that the respondents 2 to 9 had furnished any guarantee or surety in
    respect of the investment made in the project, nor has any material
    been placed on record to attract the application of Section 14(3) of
    the IBC.
15. Once a moratorium has been declared against the judgment
    debtor company, i.e., ACIPL, the modes of execution contemplated
    under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 20196 including
    attachment and sale of movable or immovable property, attachment of
    bank accounts, or withdrawal of decretal amounts from the accounts
    of the judgment debtor, stand interdicted. Execution proceedings
    cannot, therefore, be permitted to continue indirectly against the
    respondents 2 to 9, who are neither judgment debtors nor guarantors,


5   (2022) 14 SCC 609
6   CP Act
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                        587

         Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v.
               M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

     and against whom no independent liability under the order allowing
     the complaints has been established.
16. This Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue
    Deptt., Govt. of A.P.7 underscored that a clear distinction must be
    maintained between a company and its shareholders by observing
    as follows:
            “15. A clear distinction must be drawn between a company
            and its shareholder, even though that shareholder may
            be only one and that the Central or a State Government.
            In the eye of the law, a company registered under the
            Companies Act is a distinct legal entity other than the
            legal entity or entities that hold its shares.”
17. We are in complete agreement with the approach adopted by the
    NCDRC that the CP Act envisages a complete adjudicatory process
    founded on service of notice, pleadings, opportunity to contest, leading
    of evidence, and recorded findings of fact and law. These are not
    mere procedural formalities but substantive safeguards that precede
    the fastening of liability. In the present case, no such adjudicatory
    exercise was undertaken qua the respondents 2 to 9. There are
    no pleadings attributing any personal role to them, no evidence led
    to establish individual culpability, and no findings returned fixing
    personal liability. In the absence of these foundational elements,
    execution proceedings cannot be utilised as a surrogate forum to
    impose liability where none has been adjudicated.
18. It is apposite to note that the invocation of the doctrine of piercing
    the corporate veil is wholly unwarranted in the present factual matrix.
    The lifting of the corporate veil is an exceptional measure, to be
    resorted to only upon a clear finding that the corporate personality
    was abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes. Such a finding must
    be preceded by specific pleadings and a determination on merits.
    No such allegation of fraud or misuse of the corporate form was
    either pleaded or established before the adjudicatory forum. In the
    absence of a prior and reasoned determination justifying disregard of
    the corporate personality, the directors/promoters cannot be exposed
    to personal liability through execution.


7   (1999) 4 SCC 458
588                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


19. Appellant placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 17th January,
    2024. The order reads as follows:
           “11. Therefore, we are of the view that only because
           there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against
           the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can
           be initiated against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the
           respondent Nos. 2 .to 9) for execution, provided that they
           ·are otherwise liable to abide by and comply with the order,
           which is passed against the company. The protection of
           the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers
           of the company.
           12. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgments and
           orders and remit the execution application to the National
           Commission. The execution will continue against the
           opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) in
           the execution application.
           13. It is open for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 (the
           respondent Nos. 2 to 9) to raise a contention that they are
           not bound to implement the order sought to be executed.
           They are entitled to file additional objections along with
           documents raising the issue of executability as against
           them.
           14. We clarify that the issue whether opposite party Nos.
           2 to 9 (the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) to the execution are
           otherwise liable, will have to be decided by the National
           Commission in accordance with law.”
                                                       (emphasis ours)

20. A plain reading of the said order shows that it addressed a limited
    issue, namely, whether the existence of a moratorium under Section
    14 of the IBC, against ACIPL, operated as a bar to the continuation of
    execution proceedings against its directors/promoters. This Court held
    that the moratorium, by itself, does not preclude execution proceedings
    against directors or officers, provided they are otherwise liable.
21. Importantly, the order did not determine or declare any personal liability
    of the respondents 2 to 9. On the contrary, this Court expressly left it
    open to them to raise all objections as to executability and clarified
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                       589

           Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v.
                 M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

     that the question whether they are otherwise liable to comply with the
     order was required to be decided by the NCDRC in accordance with
     law. The order dated 17th January, 2024, therefore, merely removed
     the moratorium-related impediment and did not expand the scope
     of the order or fasten liability upon the directors.
22. Viewed in this light, the impugned order of the NCDRC, which
    examines the issue of executability against the respondents 2 to 9 on
    its own merits and declines to proceed against them in the absence
    of any legal or factual basis for personal liability, cannot be said to
    be inconsistent with the order of this Court.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
    record, we are of the considered view that the NCDRC committed no
    error of law or jurisdiction in declining to execute the order against
    persons who were admittedly not parties to the complaints. The
    order binds only ACIPL. Appellant did not challenge the order dated
    25th January, 2018 of the NCDRC declining to issue notice to the
    respondents 2 to 9 and directing it to file amended memo of party
    with ACIPL as the sole respondent, and cannot now enlarge the
    order through execution. Hence, in our opinion, the appeals must fail.
24. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.
25. However, this dismissal will not preclude the appellant from pursuing
    any remedy available in law against the promoters/directors, including
    proceedings under the Companies Act, IBC, or civil law, should the
    statutory requirements therefor be satisfied.
26. There shall be no order as to costs.

     CIVIL APPEAL NOs.8539, 10874-10877 & 10878 OF 2024
27. These appeals involve similar questions of fact and law as raised
    in the lead appeals and for the reasons aforementioned, the same
    too stand dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain