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

1997 Supreme(All) 994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash and R. K. Gulati, JJ.
G.C.MEHROTRA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (COLLECTIONS) SALES TAX - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 108 Of 1983
Decided On : 09/04/1997

Advocates Appeared:
Bharat Ji Agrawal, Piyush Agrawal

Directors are not personally liable for the recovery of dues outstanding against the company, unless permitted by specific provision of law or by an agreement between the parties.

Headnote:

Company Law - Recovery of Dues - Personal Liability of Director

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a director of a company, contested the recovery of dues outstanding against the company from his personal assets, arguing that the company is a separate legal entity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the recovery of dues outstanding against the company cannot be realized from the personal assets of a director, unless permitted by specific provision of law or by an agreement between the parties.

Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, as a director of the company, could be held personally liable for the company's outstanding dues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that for the recovery of dues outstanding against the company, the respondents cannot proceed against the personal assets of a director, unless permitted by specific provision of law or by an agreement between the parties.

Final Decision: The petition succeeded and the respondents were restrained from realizing arrears of tax outstanding against the company from the personal assets of the petitioner.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the petitioner was one of the directors in Allahabad Electronics (P.) Ltd.--a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture and sale of power and distribution of transformers. For the recovery of the dues outstanding against the company, the respondents proceeded against the personal assets of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the company is a separate legal entity and, therefore, no tax and other dues outstanding against the company can be realised from the personal assets of the petitioner. So far as this proposition is concerned, that cannot be disputed in law. In para. 15 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents simply averred that the petitioner is personally liable to pay arrears of sales tax outstanding against the company, because he happens to be one of the directors in the company, No law in support of such contention is shown by standing counsel. Rather, the settled law is that for the recovery of the dues outstanding against the company, the respondents cannot proceed against the personal assets of a director of the company, unless that is permitted by a specific provision of law or by an agreement between the parties.

( 3 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed, The respondents are restrained from realising arrears of tax outstanding against the company from the personal assets of the petitioner.


.

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
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