SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Pat) 101

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.N.Prasad, J.
Bablu Cold Storage And Lce Cream Pvt.Ltd.Through Its One Of The Directors, Harishankar Singh
Versus
Surendra Prasad
C.R. No. 302 of 2004 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 01, 2005

The liability of an incorporated company cannot be enforced against its officers, and any debt payable by the company can only be realized by seizing the company's assets.

Headnote:

Attachment and Sale of Property - Managing Director - Liability of Company's Officers

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Managing Director of a company, filed a petition to exempt his personal property from attachment and sale in a case related to the company's liability. The petition was rejected by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, as a Managing Director, was not a partner of the company and that the liability of the company cannot be enforced against its officers, including the Director/Managing Director.

Issues: The issue was whether the personal property of the Managing Director could be attached and sold to satisfy the company's liability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that the liability of an incorporated company cannot be enforced against its officers, and any debt payable by the company can only be realized by seizing the company's assets.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order rejecting the petitioner's petition was set aside, allowing the court to attach the property of the company to satisfy the decree.

Judgment

1. The revision has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2004 passed in Execution Case No. 9/98 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner on 7.1.2004 for exempting his personal property from attachment and sale has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is a Managing Director of Bablu Cold Storage and Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd., Mehasi in the district of Motihari. The District Consumer Forum, East Champaran passed an order with respect to certain liability of the company. The same was treated as decree and as such against order/decree of the District Consumer Forum Execution Case No. 9/98 was filed by the opposite party no. 1 against the firm and the Managing Director, the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the execution case and filed a petition for exempting his personal property from attachment/said for satisfaction of the decree. The said petition has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Managing Director of the Company and as such his personal property cannot be attached/sold. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner is a partner of the Company and as such his property can also be sold/attached.

4. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and after going through the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner is one of the Managing Directors and also one of the subscribers besides two others namely, Kanti Devi and Mubarak Hussain with equal equity shares. Thus it is evident that the petitioner is not the partner of the Company. Moreover, it is not a firm rather it is a Company. In such a situation, the decree can be satisfied by attachment/sale of the property of the company. In this regard reference may be made to a decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. 2002(2) PLJR 553 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that liability of the Company cannot be enforced against its officers including the Director/Managing Director. Any debt payable by an incorporated company can be realised only by seizing the asset of the company and not by putting in prison the Managing Director or any of the officers of the Company. No individual associated with a incorporated company can be held liable for the dues of the company which is a legal person having its own rights and liabilities. It appears that the Court below has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.

5. Thus the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside.

6. It is open to the court below to attach the property of the company and satisfy the decree.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top