Introduction
In a pivotal judgment dated January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/s. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4480–4481 of 2023) held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not shield directors and officers of the corporate debtor from execution proceedings. This ruling clarifies the personal accountability of company management despite the ongoing corporate insolvency process.
Factual Background
- A group of homebuyers approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., seeking either possession of flats or refunds with interest.
- The NCDRC ruled in favor of the homebuyers.
- Subsequently, a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC came into effect due to the initiation of CIRP against the company.
- The issue arose whether the decree could be executed against the directors and officers, considering they were not party to the original consumer complaint.
Key Legal Issues
- Does the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC extend to directors and officers of a corporate debtor?
- Can directors be held liable in execution proceedings without a specific adjudication in the original consumer complaint?
- How do precedents such as P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. and Anjali Rathi v. Today Homes apply?
Arguments Presented
Appellants’ Contentions (Flat Buyers)
- Section 32A(1) (second proviso) of the IBC limits moratorium protection to the corporate debtor.
- Cited P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (2021) 6 SCC 258, which held that Section 14 applies only to the corporate debtor, not to its management.
- Referred to Anjali Rathi v. Today Homes where execution against promoters was allowed, affirming that promoter liability survives moratorium.
Respondents’ Contentions (Directors & Officers)
- The NCDRC’s order did not impose specific liability on directors or officers.
- In Anjali Rathi, execution was allowed only because there was a prior settlement—which did not exist in this case.
- Since directors were not parties to the original complaint, initiating execution proceedings against them was improper.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning & Decision
1. No Blanket Immunity Under Section 14
The Court reaffirmed that the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor, not its directors or officers, unless the IBC specifically provides otherwise.
2. Lack of Adjudication by Consumer Forum
The Court held that the NCDRC had not determined whether directors and officers were personally liable. Without such adjudication, execution against individuals cannot be sustained.
3. Remand for Proper Adjudication
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s execution order against the directors and remitted the matter back to the Commission. The NCDRC must now determine afresh whether directors and officers can be held personally liable.
Conclusion & Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association delivers much-needed clarity on the limits of the IBC moratorium. It underscores that:
- Directors and officers are not automatically shielded from liability merely because the company is under CIRP.
- Personal liability must be adjudicated separately, and cannot be presumed.
- Creditors—especially homebuyers—retain the right to pursue erring management, provided there is a clear finding of liability.
This decision is a significant precedent for stakeholders in insolvency and consumer litigation, reinforcing that CIRP does not nullify valid individual claims where liability is independently established.
FAQs:
1. Does Section 14 of the IBC bar proceedings against directors?
No. The moratorium under Section 14 applies only to the corporate debtor, not its directors or officers.
2. Can directors be made liable without being parties to the original complaint?
Not automatically. There must be a specific adjudication of personal liability by the competent forum.
3. What happens if directors were not named in the original consumer case?
The executing court or commission must first adjudicate whether they are independently liable before allowing execution.
4. Can creditors proceed against directors even during CIRP?
Yes, provided there is a clear legal basis and no statutory protection under the IBC (e.g., under Sections 14 or 32A).
5. Does this ruling protect homebuyers’ interests during insolvency?
Yes. It prevents misuse of the IBC moratorium and ensures that management remains accountable, subject to due process.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.
