In the said order, a direction was issued giving an option to the homebuyers, which reads thus: – “…(vi) If the Members of the Complainant Association are not interested to wait any more for taking possession of the allotted Apartment and they want refund of the their deposited amount, the Opposite Party Developer shall refund the entire deposited amount along with interest @9% p.a. Thereafter, the National Commission observed that in view of moratorium against the company, it would not be appropriate to proceed in the same execution against the opposite party Nos. 3 and 9 submitted that under the order which is sought to be executed, there is no liability fastened on the opposite party Nos.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-of-judgement-on-discharge-in-a-murder-case/
Their submission is that in the case of Anjali Rathi (supra), this Court made a departure by permitting the appellants to proceed against the promoters of the company, which was subject to moratorium only because there was a settlement arrived at between them before this Court.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC, by which continuation of Sections 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Sections 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted, what is staed in paras 51 and 59 in Aneeta Hada
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
This being the case, it is clear that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore, we are of the view that only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) for execution, provided that they are otherwise liable to abide by and comply with the order, which is passed against the company. The protection of the moratorium will not be available to the directors/officers of the company.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgments and orders and remit the execution application to the National Commission. The execution will continue against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) in the execution application.
It is open for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) to raise a contention that they are not bound to implement the order sought to be executed. They are entitled to file additional objections along with documents raising the issue of executability as against them.
We clarify that the issue whether opposite party Nos. 2 to 9(the respondent Nos. 2 to 9) to the execution are otherwise liable, will have to be decided by the National Commission in accordance with law.
The appeals are partly allowed on the above terms. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLATS BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) Vs. ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD INDIA PVT. LTD. (2024 INSC 54)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004480-004481 / 2023
