Amol Rattan Singh, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon three judgments of coordinate Benches of this court, as also a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012(2) RAJ 562, to contend that where the company or partnership firm itself has not been impleaded as a respondent in the complaint filed, proceedings against the directors/partners/other officers and officials of the company or partnership, cannot be sustained. As such, in the present case, where, though a partner of M/s. Shivalik Agro Chemicals, Mohali, and its Chief Chemist, have been impleaded as respondents in the complaint filed before the trial court, the firm itself not having been impleaded, proceedings cannot be sustained. Mr. Anil Chaudhary, learned D.A.G., Punjab, submits that the explanation to Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, states that for the purpose of the said Section, the company would mean any body corporate and would include a firm 'or other association of individuals'. He further submits that the petitioners would be covered by the last phrase, i.e. 'or other association of individuals'.

2. This, obviously,