Fundamental principal for execution of Consumer Court decree to be implemented verbatim against judgment debtor, it cannot go beyond order
The Supreme Court observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, against its directors or promoters personally, when it is obtained solely against a builder company, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings.
“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.”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,
the homebuyer’s plea dismissed for execution of an order against the directors and promoters of the building company.
Case Title- Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) Vs. M/S Ansal Crown Infra build Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Date of Judgment 12 Jan 2026
Head Notes by Dr Prem Lata
Facts of the case:
The builder, M/s Ansal Crown Intrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (ACIPL), failed to deliver possession. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2022 passed an order directing only ACIPL to either complete the project or refund the invested amounts with interest.
Subsequently, ACIPL entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), triggering a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. This stalled execution against the company’s assets. The homebuyers’ association then sought to enforce the decree against the company’s directors (Respondents 2 to 9) personally. NCDRC refused their plea, the homebuyers moved to the Supreme Court.
Refusing to interfere with the impugned order, SC Bench headed by Justice Datta observed that the decree cannot be enforced against persons who are not judgment-debtors.
Directors Are neither Judgment Debtor nor Guarantors
- “Execution proceedings cannot, therefore, 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.”, the court said
- NCDRC Adopted appropriate approach as Per Law
“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.
- Procedure for Substantive safeguards for fastening of liability
These are not mere procedural formalities but substantive safeguards that precede the fastening of liability
- No such adjudicatory exercise was undertaken qua the Directors
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.
- No foundational elements of pleadings against Director’s present
In the absence of these foundational elements, execution proceedings cannot be utilised as a surrogate forum to impose liability where none has been adjudicated.”
The court observed
Hence plea of home buyers dismissed.
By Dr Prem Lata
