9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n A.S. No. 1020 of 1998, the order challenged is the order in I.A. No. 736 of 1998, which is a claim petition filed by the appellant regarding the properties attached and made absolute as per the order in I.A. No. 303 of 1998. The claim petition was dismissed. Hence the appeal is filed. The first respondent in A.S. No. 1020 of 1998 and the respondent in C.M.A. No. 247 of 1998 - PKV Group Industries - is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for realisation of the balance amount from the defendant Jikku Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 3,83,250 is due from the defendant. A petition for attachment was filed on the ground that the property in the schedule belongs to Jikku Chit Fund. Jikku Chit Fund is a company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the company is a separate legal entity and the liability of the company cannot be imposed on its officers or directors. The lower court went wrong in relying on section 322 of the Companies Act. It is only with regard to the liability of the shareholders towards the company and it is not for the outsiders. 4. The decisions reported in Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [1984] 55 Comp. Cas. 590 (Ker.) and Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Quilon [1985] KLT 758 were cited for the proposition that unless by special law, the Managing Director is mulcted with personal liability he is not liable. In Kundan Singh v. Moga Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1987] 62 Comp. Cas. 600 (P H), the question arose under the Industrial Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cilitate evasion of legal obligations where individual directors of a company were sought to be proceeded against for evasion of excise duty, the corporate veil was directed to be lifted to determine whether a particular director could be proceeded against or whether he was liable for payment of all duties. That question does not arise in this case, because admittedly the suit was filed against the company for realisation of the balance amount. If that be so, only the company is made liable for the amount. 5. In the above view of the fact, we do not find any justification in the orders passed by the court below and the orders passed are set aside. A.S. No. 1020 of 1998 and C.M.A. No. 247 of 1998 are allowed. I.A. No. 303 of 1998 is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
