The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's dismissal of execution applications against directors/promoters of ACIPL, holding that execution must strictly conform to the decree and cannot bind persons not adjudicated in the original complaints. The NCDRC had admitted consumer complaints only against ACIPL, excluding directors/promoters, and this order was never challenged, attaining finality. No liability was determined against directors/promoters in the complaints, and thus execution against them was impermissible. The Court clarified that while moratorium under IBC does not extend to directors/promoters, execution cannot proceed due to lack of decree against them.
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order that refused execution against directors/promoters of M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (ACIPL) -- The Court held that execution must strictly conform to the decree and cannot bind persons not party to the original adjudication -- The NCDRC had admitted complaints only against ACIPL, excluding directors/promoters, and this order attained finality -- No pleadings, issues, or findings were recorded against the directors/promoters in the complaints -- The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) shields only the corporate debtor, not directors/promoters, but execution cannot proceed against them due to lack of liability in the decree -- The principle from Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan was cited, emphasizing that executing court cannot go beyond the decree
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding NCDRC's decision that execution cannot proceed against respondents 2 to 9 (directors/promoters) as they were not party to the decree
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 48
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 8465-8466 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 10874-10877 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 10878 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-12
Case Title: Whether persons arrayed as respondents in consumer complaints but against whom no notice was issued and complaints did not proceed could be brought within execution against directors/promoters of judgment-debtor company
Before Judge: DIPANKAR DATTA J. , AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 51
Appellant: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.), Kamal Girotra & Anr., Sangeeta Dewan Etc. Etc., Nidhi Chawla
Respondent: M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nature of Litigation: Consumer disputes regarding non-delivery of flats by builder
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought execution of NCDRC order against directors/promoters of ACIPL for non-compliance
Filing Reason: ACIPL failed to deliver possession of flats as per agreements and did not comply with NCDRC order to complete project or refund amounts
Previous Decisions: NCDRC allowed complaints against ACIPL in 2022, directing completion or refund -- NCDRC dismissed execution applications against directors/promoters in 2024 -- Supreme Court set aside NCDRC's sine die adjournment in 2024, allowing execution against directors/promoters but they could raise objections
Issues: Whether execution can proceed against directors/promoters who were not party to the original consumer complaint decree
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued directors/promoters should be liable in execution as they were arrayed in complaints -- Respondents argued no liability as complaints proceeded only against ACIPL and no findings were recorded against directors/promoters
Ratio Decidendi: Execution must strictly conform to the decree and cannot bind persons not adjudicated in the original proceedings -- Liability cannot be shifted or enlarged in execution to include non-parties -- Directors/promoters not liable if no pleadings, issues, or findings against them in the complaint
Judgment Excerpts: "Execution must strictly conform to 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 ..." -- Para 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." -- Para 12
Procedural History: Consumer complaints filed in 2018 -- NCDRC admitted complaints only against ACIPL in 2018 -- NCDRC allowed complaints in 2022 -- Execution applications filed in 2023 -- NCDRC adjourned proceedings sine die due to moratorium in 2023 -- Supreme Court set aside adjournment in 2024 -- NCDRC dismissed execution applications against directors/promoters in 2024 -- Supreme Court appeal in 2024
