9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment debtor company. The arbitration proceedings as well as the execution petition was filed only against the judgment debtor company i.e. M/s Akshay International Pvt. Ltd. 2. The judgment debtor company was sought to be served with the notice of execution through its Director Shri Prakash Baliga. On 19th May, 2005, the counsel for the judgment debtor company made a statement, recorded in the order of that the date that the judgment debtor company was in a bad shape and that Mr. Prakash Baliga was gathering resources and keen to settle the matter. Mr. Prakash Baliga was directed to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing. Mr. Prakash Baliga appeared before the court on 12th August, 2008 and again informed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties and the judgment debtor company has no other means to satisfy the decree. They also contended that they were not personally liable. Per contra, the counsel for the decree holder contended on that date that the third Director Mr. Prakash Baliga has already paid ₹ 6 lacs out of the decretal amount and the other two Directors should pay the balance decretal amount. This Court directed the balance sheet and statement of affairs of the company to be filed and the same were filed. 4. However, the decree holder rather than responding thereto has filed this application pleading that the judgment debtor company is a closely held company of the three Directors aforesaid who were friends; that keeping in view the nature of constitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration award having force of the decree is against the judgment debtor company only and not against its Directors. The question which arises is whether a money decree against a Private Limited Co. can be executed against its Directors. There is no provision therefore in the CPC. Order 21 Rule 50 does provide for execution of a money decree against a firm from the assets of the partners of the said firm mentioned in the said rule but there is no provision with respect to the Directors of a company. The executing court, as this Court is cannot go behind the decree and can execute the same as per its form only. The decree is against the company. This Court as the executing court cannot execute the decree against anyone other than the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verruled by the Division Bench in EFA(OS) No. 17/2008 decided on 7th November, 2008. Though the Learned Single Judge had held no case of lifting of the corporate veil in execution to be made out in that case, the Division Bench found that the Director of the company had agreed to be personally liable to satisfy the decree and held him liable. However, the Division Bench refrained from commenting authoritatively on the aspect of lifting of the corporate veil in execution. Thus the said judgment cited by the counsel for the decree holder does not come to his rescue. 8. I also do not find any of the other judgments relied upon by the decree holder to be relevant. In Ashish Polyfibres (Bihar) Ltd., in a suit by a bank for recovery of dues, dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the decree holder has been unable to show a single precedent where the money decree against a company has been executed against the Directors or against the assets of the Directors. The provisions of law as aforesaid, also do not permit the same. The Transfer of Property Act in Section 53 thereof allows a creditor to have a transfer of property made with an intent to defeat the creditor set aside. However, the decree holder has not made out/pleaded any case of transfer also. 10. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that whenever the decree is against a company, its Directors/shareholders would also be liable. To hold so would be contrary to the very concept of limited liability and obliterate the distinction between a pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the said circumstance alone is not sufficient to make out a case for lifting of the corporate veil. It has been vaguely stated that the claims of the decree holder are pending since 1996 and the assets of the company have been done away with. There are no averments whatsoever as to what were the assets of the company and as to when they were transferred. In Saurabh Exports, on the pleadings and evidence recorded, the court had found that the company was only a front for the business of its Directors and it was on such evidence that the decree was passed not only against the company but against the Directors also. In the present case no efforts whatsoever have been made out by the decree holder to even plead that the assets of the Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
