1. This revision has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by X Additional District Judge, Indore in Execution Case No. 19105.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision lies in narrow compass, the non-applicant No.1 on the basis of an Arbitration Award dated 1.8.1994 passed against the non-applicant No.2 submitted an application MJC No.2 1199 under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act of 1940) before the District Judge, Vidisha for making the award rule of Court. The said application was contested by the applicant No.2. The District Judge, Yidisha after recording the evidence led by the parties vide order dated 28.2.2003 passed a decree in favour of the non-applicant No.1 and against non-applicant No.2 for a sum of Rs.14, 14,275/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 23.5.1994 till payment.

3. The non-applicant No.1 decree holder applied for execution of the said decree from the personal properties of the present applicant Managing Director of non-applicant No.2 Company instead of non-applicant No.2 judgment debtor) M/s. Friends Bottling Private Limited. In the circumstances, the applicant filed an application before the Executing Court invoking section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia on the ground that the decree has been passed against the non-applicant No.2 a Private Limited Company and as such it can only be executed against the company and not against the personal properties of the applicant. After hearing the parties on the said application, the Executing Court rejected the application of the applicant and ordered for issuance of recovery warrant against the personal properties of the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.3.2008 the applicant has filed this revision.

4. Shri G .M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the decree has been passed against the non-applicant No.2 Private Limited Company which is a distinct legal entity than the applicant who is its Managing Director and, therefore, decree against the judgment debtor company cannot be executed against the applicant Managing Director of the said Company. He submitted that there is no provision in the Companies Act making the Managing Director of a private company personally liable for recovery of dues against the company. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Pravinchand Parakh v. Navratanmal Nahata and others [1995 MPU SN 59), and also on Kuriakose v. P.K. V Group Industries and another [2002 vol. III Company Cases 826], K.S. Narasimhan v. Commercial Tax Officer. Kuralagam, Amlexe, Chemzai [(2008) II YST 283], Om Prakash Balecha v. State of Haryana and others [(2008) 135 Company Cases 799].

5. Shri R.S. Laad, learned counsel appering for the non-applicant No.1 on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that as the address of residence of the applicant and the address of the non-applicant NO.2 Company being one and the same the applicant himself is a person responsible to satisfy the decree. He argued that the name of the non-applicant No.2 Company has been ordered to be struck off from the records as per portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Director of the Company is personally liable for the liabilities/dues arising after such striking off the name of the company. He submits that if the corporate veil of the non-applicant No.2 is lifted it would be clear that it is only the applicant who is liable to satisfy the dues of the company. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on section 45 and Proviso (a) of sub-section (5) of section 560 of the Companies Act. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Saurabh Exports v. Blaze Finlease and Credits Pvt. Ltd. [(2006)133 Company Cases 495].

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the only question