Back
1989 Supreme(P&H) 592
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Sikander Singh
Versus
S.A.Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Civil Revision No. 1375 of 1988,
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 1989
Officers of a company cannot be arrested in execution of a decree against the company unless there is a decree against the officers themselves.
Headnote:
Arrest Warrants - Managing Director - Interpretation of Civil Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was the Managing Director of a company, challenged the arrest warrants issued against him in execution of a decree obtained against the company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the Managing Director, could not be arrested in execution of the decree against the company, as the decree was only against the company and not against its officers.
Issues: Interpretation of the definition of judgment-debtor and Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and concluded that the petitioner, as the Managing Director, could not be arrested in execution of a decree against the company unless there was a decree against him as well.
Final Decision: The petition was accepted, and the impugned order directing issuance of warrants of arrest was set aside.
J.V.Gupta, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order of the executive Court dated 27th of May, 1988, whereby warrants were issued in pursuance of which the petitioner who happened to be the Managing Director of the Company i.e. judgment-debtor known as Bagrian Shoes Limited, was being arrested.
2. At the time of the motion hearing operation of the impugned order was stayed on 8.6.1988. The decree-holder obtained a decree against the Company known as Bagrian Shoes Ltd. In execution of that decree the executing Court passed the impugned order for conditional warrants without naming against whom the warrants were being missed. However, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner who happened to be the Managing Director of the judgment-debtors Company was being arrested.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment-debtor is defined under clause (10) of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and under Section 55 of the C.P.C. only the arrest could be made of the judgment-debtor. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, since the petitioner was not the judgment-debtor and it was the Company only, he could not be arrested even if he was its Managing Director unless there was a decree against him as well.
4. After hearing learned Counsel, I find merit in the impugned contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Since the decree is against the Company only and not against its officers, the petitioner could not be arrested in executing thereof. Consequently, the petition succeeds, and the impugned order directing issuance of warrants of arrest is set aside. Petition accepted.
