In a landmark judgment of Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) vs. M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has recently clarified that the imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not impede the execution of a decree against the Directors or Officers of a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the IBC. The ruling emphasizes that the protection of the moratorium is applicable solely to the Corporate Debtor (“CD”) and not its Directors or Officers, allowing the execution of a decree against them even during the moratorium.
Background
The case involves the Homebuyers' Association, representing a project developed by M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) had issued an order directing the completion of the project and the handover of possession to the Homebuyers. Subsequently, a petition under Section 9 of the IBC was filed, leading to the initiation of CIRP against the Developer Company and the imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.
The Homebuyers sought to execute the NCDRC's order against the Developer Company and its Directors and Officers. However, the NCDRC declined to execute the decree against the Directors/Officers, citing the operation of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The SC was approached to challenge this decision.
Supreme Court Verdict
The SC, referred to previous judgments, including P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. and Anjali Rathi vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. In these cases, the Court had established that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies solely to the CD and does not extend to its Directors or Officers.
The Court reiterated that the liability of directors and officers of a company undergoing CIRP continues, irrespective of the moratorium. It emphasized that the protection of the moratorium is not available to Directors/Officers, and therefore, proceedings for the execution of a decree can be initiated against them if they are otherwise liable to comply with the order passed against the company.
Possible Implications
The judgment provides a crucial legal clarification regarding the applicability of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC to Directors of a defaulting company. The Court's decision reaffirms the principle that the moratorium is a shield for the CD, not its individual officers or directors.
The ruling aligns with the understanding that the moratorium serves the purpose of protecting the corporate entity undergoing insolvency proceedings, allowing it the necessary breathing space to undergo resolution without the distraction of parallel legal proceedings. However, it does not absolve the personal liability of Directors or Officers, allowing creditors to pursue legal remedies against them even during the moratorium.
Our Take
The SC's decision in the Ansal Crown Heights case provides a timely and crucial interpretation of the legal framework surrounding the imposition of a moratorium under the IBC. By clarifying that the protection of the moratorium does not extend to Directors or Officers, the Court has struck a balance between the need to shield the CD during insolvency proceedings and the accountability of individual decision-makers. This ruling not only upholds the rights of creditors seeking to execute decrees against Directors but also sets a precedent for future cases, providing clarity on the scope and limitations of the moratorium under the IBC. Overall, the judgment contributes to the legal certainty and coherence of insolvency proceedings in India, reinforcing the principle that personal liabilities of Directors persist even in the face of corporate insolvency.
Comments