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

1992 Supreme(P&H) 1031

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.L.Bahri, J.
Maruti Ltd.(In Liqn.), Chandigarh
Versus
Pan India Plastic Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi
Company Appeal No. 59 of 1986,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 20, 1992

The court held that the decree-holder had failed to prove that the Managing Director had concealed property or obstructed the execution of the decree. The court also held that the Managing Director was not personally liable for the recovery of dues against the limited company and could not be arrested under S. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

EXECUTION OF DECREE - ARREST AND DETENTION OF MANAGING DIRECTOR - GROUNDS - S. 51 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 21 - PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY - ORDER 21 RULE 11-A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS - SATISFACTION OF THE COURT - BURDEN OF PROOF ON DECREE-HOLDER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Decree-holder sought arrest and detention of the Managing Director of the judgment-debtor company under Order 21 Rule 11-A read with S. 55 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-compliance with the warrant of attachment issued by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decree-holder failed to prove that the Managing Director had concealed property or obstructed the execution of the decree. The court also held that the Managing Director was not personally liable for the recovery of dues against the limited company and could not be arrested under S. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: 1. Whether the decree-holder had established grounds under S. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order the arrest and detention of the Managing Director? 2. Whether the Managing Director was personally liable for the recovery of dues against the limited company?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decree-holder had failed to prove that the Managing Director had concealed property or obstructed the execution of the decree. The court also held that the Managing Director was not personally liable for the recovery of dues against the limited company and could not be arrested under S. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The court relied on the provisions of S. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 21 Rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for arrest and detention of the Managing Director.

Judgment

1. On 2/03/1984 a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,29,562.40 with interest and costs was passed in favour of the decree-holders M/s. Maruti Ltd. and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. against the judgement-debtor M/s. Pan India Plastic Pvt. Ltd. through Rabindera Grewal, Managing Director and Shri Ranindra Grewal Managing Director, M/s. Pan India Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Execution of the decree was taken in this Court for recovery of the decretal amount which included interest and costs was stated to be Rs. 2,00,364.50, by attachment and sale of movable property described as air-conditioner, car, scooter, electric fans, radio, transistors, T.V., refrigerator, machinery, office furniture, cash, all other goods and every other movable and immovable property found at the spot. Thus warrant of attachment was issued. The attachment could not be effected as per report on the warrant of attachment which is Exhibit A.4. The report is dated 7/05/1985.

2. Some contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court in view of the report-Exhibit A.4 against two persons, namely, Rabindra S. Grewal and Dhan Raj. Ultimately both these persons submitted affidavit copies which are Annexures A.2 and A.3. They tendered unqualified apologies for causing directly or indirectly hindrance in the execution of warrant of attachment issued against the judgement-debtor. They sought forgiveness from this Court. Thus, in view thereof no further action was taken against the aforesaid two persons by the Court.

3. The decree-holders moved the present application C.A. No. 59 of 1986 in Execution Petition No. 5/1 of 1984 under Order 21, Rule 11-A read with S. 55 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for arrest and detention of the Managing Director of judgement-debtor No. 1, M/s. Pan India Plastic (P) Ltd., which is for disposal. The aforesaid facts have been mentioned in the application. In para 2 of the application it is mentioned that the judgement-debtor did not permit the execution of the warrant of attachment issued by this Court. The Process Server and the nominee of the decree-holder were not allowed to enter the premises to effect the attachment. The resistance was offered to the extent that the entrance gate was locked and was not opened in spite of the fact that the Civil Nazir accompanied the representative of the decree-holder. In para 3 reference has been made of issuing notices to Shri Rabindra Singh Grewal and Dhan Raj Chowkidar and affidavits filed by them. It is not considered necessary to refer in detail about the matters mentioned in the affidavits. Suffice it to say that they stated that the property of the Company had already been sold under orders of Delhi High Court and the remaining land and property was being auctioned by the Haryana Financial Corporation. Along with the execution application affidavit of Mohinder Singh; Assistant Secretary, Maruti Udyog was filed. Reply to the application was filed by way of affidavit of Rabindra S. Grewal wherein he stated that he had no assets left of his own and the assets sought to be attached at 14/3, Palam, Gurgaon Road, did not belong to him but were in fact totally owned by Mr. B. S. Grewal, I.C.S. (Retired), (his father). In the affidavit filed by Shri Dhan Raj, he stated that he was Chowkidar of Shri B. S. Grewal at the farm-house and had nothing to do with the Company against whom warrant of attachment was issued and that he never obstructed attachment of the property.

4. The present application remained pending for six years without any progress in the proceedings. When the matter was taken up on 19/11/1992, statements of counsel for the parties were recorded. Counsel for the decree-holder in his statement produced into evidence affidavits of Mohinder Singh, Assistant Secretary of Maruti Udyog Limited, Rabindra Grewal, Dhan Raj, report of Nazir, Gurgaon, and a letter of Shri G. S. Grewal, dated 19/08/1985. He further stated that he was not to produce any other evidence in support of his application.




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top