9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs alongwith interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum which had been got released from the bank account of the petitioner company. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is having a manufacturing unit in Industrial Estate Ambala Cantt. The petitioner company had an overdraft account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through which it was availing and managing requirement of working capital for its business wherein payments from customers were being received and thereafter the same were being made to its vendors. On 5.10.2018, Annexure P.2, the petitioner company received an email from the Bank that status of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with written submissions. Accordingly, the petitioner company submitted written submissions stating that it had never given any surety for M/s Gayatri Steel Traders, Ambala City and no resolution in this regard was ever given to the department. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide order dated nil, Annexure P.9 rejected the representation of the petitioner company and got released an amount of Rs. 5 lacs from its account. According to the petitioner company, the said payment from its bank account had been got made by invoking the alleged surety submitted by Shri Vinod Kumar in his individual and personal capacity. Shri Vinod Kumar was one of the directors of the petitioner company. He might have stood surety in his personal capacity and without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stify the action taken by respondents No.1 and 2 with reference to any statutory provision or to place on record any material in support of its claim. Further, it is well settled that in the absence of any specific provision in the statute, company cannot be held liable for the surety given by its director in his individual and personal capacity. In Subhash Goyal vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014(4) PLR 7, it was held by this Court that where the petitioner being a director stood surety, the amount can be recovered from him after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated nil, Annexure P.9 passed by responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
