In a crucial judgment for the real estate and corporate litigation landscape, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a decree obtained solely against a private limited company (in this case, a builder) cannot be enforced against its directors or promoters personally during the execution stage, unless a specific finding of their personal liability was recorded in the original order.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by homebuyers who sought to recover their dues from the directors of a real estate firm after the company itself went into insolvency

The case, Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., stemmed from a long-standing grievance of homebuyers in Gurugram.

The Decree: In 2022, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed the builder company (Ansal Crown Infrabuild) to refund the homebuyers' money with interest due to a failure to deliver possession. Crucially, the decree was against the Company, not its individual directors.
The Obstacle: Before the decree could be executed, the company entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC. Consequently, a moratorium was imposed, preventing any recovery from the company's assets.
The Execution Attempt: Desperate for relief, the homebuyers' association sought to execute the NCDRC decree against the individual directors/promoters of the company, arguing that they were the "controlling minds" behind the fraud.

The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's refusal to attach the directors' personal assets. The judgment laid down several key principles:

1. Sanctity of the Decree: The Court reiterated the settled principle that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

"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." Since the original NCDRC judgment did not hold the directors personally liable, the execution proceedings could not unilaterally create that liability.

2. The Corporate Veil Shield: While the "Corporate Veil" can be lifted to hold directors liable for fraud, the Court clarified that this must be done during the adjudicatory stage (trial/complaint), not the execution stage.

The homebuyers had initially impleaded the directors but later dropped them from the complaint on the NCDRC's direction in 2018. They failed to challenge that order then.
Trying to bring them back in the execution stage was legally impermissible.

3. Directors ≠ Judgment Debtors: The Court observed that the directors were neither "Judgment Debtors" nor guarantors in this specific decree. Therefore, the IBC moratorium on the company does not automatically transfer the liability to the directors unless they were independently held liable in the decree.

This judgment serves as a wake-up call for homebuyers and litigants suing corporate entities:

Implead Early: If you want to hold directors personally liable (especially in real estate cases where insolvency is a risk), you must press for their liability during the trial/complaint stage.
Prove Fraud: Specific allegations of fraud or personal guarantees must be proven to get a decree against directors individually.
Execution Limits: Once a decree is passed only against "M/s Company Pvt Ltd," you cannot chase the directors' personal assets in execution, even if the company goes bankrupt.