2026 Supreme(SC) 49

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) – Appellant
Versus
M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8465-8466 of 2024
With
Kamal Girotra & Anr. – Appellants
VS.
M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2024
With
Sangeeta Dewan Etc. Etc. – Appellants
VS.
M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10874-10877 of 2024
And
Nidhi Chawla – Appellant
VS.
M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10878 of 2024
Decided On : 12-01-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Execution must strictly conform to decree – A decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder.
(2) Where judgment debtor is a company, 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.
(3) Insolvency – Moratorium – Lifting of corporate veil is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear finding that corporate personality was abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 71 – Execution of Decree – Flat Buyer’s Agreement – CP Act envisages 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 – Execution must strictly conform to decree – A decree cannot, by process of execution, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder – Where judgment debtor is a company, 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 – Execution proceedings cannot be permitted to continue indirectly against those respondents who are neither judgment debtors nor guarantors, and against whom no independent liability under order allowing complaints has been established – 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 absence of these foundational elements, execution proceedings cannot be utilized as a surrogate forum to impose liability where none has been adjudicated – NCDRC committed no error of law or jurisdiction in declining to execute order against persons who were admittedly not parties to complaints. (Paras 12, 13, 17 and 23)

(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 14 – Insolvency – Moratorium – Doctrine of Piercing Corporate Veil – Lifting of Corporate Veil is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear finding that 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 corporate form was either pleaded or established before adjudicatory forum – In absence of prior and reasoned determination justifying disregard of corporate personality, Directors/Promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability through execution – Doctrine of Piercing Corporate Veil is wholly unwarranted in present factual matrix. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:

The lead appeals call in question judgment and order dated 20th June, 2024 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing Execution Application Nos. 27/2023 and 28/2023 filed by appellant against respondents. Such applications arose from two final orders rendered by NCDRC while deciding complaints lodged by appellant bearing nos. CC/2600/2018 and CC/86/2018 respectively.

Findings of Court:

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.

Result : Appeals dismissed.