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

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 12-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.