Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Rekha Kamat Tarcar, was a former Technical Director of respondent no.2 company, Ravish Infusions Ltd. (now IFG Limited). She resigned on 13/06/2001. Respondent no.1, M/s. Natt Steel Equipments Ltd., had obtained a decree in Special Civil Suit No.226/95/A against respondent no.2 company for Rs.69,51,746/- with interest at 23% from 05/05/1995. The decree was passed on 29/10/2005. In execution proceedings (Execution Application No.30/06/A), respondent no.1 impleaded the petitioner as the representative of the judgment debtor company, describing her as a director. The petitioner challenged this by filing a writ petition, arguing that she was not a party to the suit and had resigned before the decree. The court examined the execution application and found that the decree holder had only sought execution against the company's property and detention of its director, but the petitioner was added only as a representative of the defunct company. The decree holder filed an affidavit clarifying that no personal claim was made against the petitioner and that she was only added because the company was defunct and other directors were absconding. The court held that the petitioner was not personally liable under the decree and that the execution proceedings against her as representative were permissible. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to show any legal injury.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Representative Capacity - Order 21 Rule 50, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner, a former director of a defunct company, was added in the execution proceedings only as representative of the judgment debtor company, not personally. The court held that the decree holder had not sought any personal relief against the petitioner and the petitioner was not personally liable under the decree. (Paras 7-9) B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Attachment of Property - Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court noted that the decree holder sought execution by detention of director or attachment/sale of company property. The petitioner's property was not attached, and the decree holder clarified no claim was made against her personally. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a former director of the judgment debtor company, could be proceeded against in execution proceedings personally or only as representative of the company.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner failed to show any legal injury as she was only added as representative of the judgment debtor company and no personal claim was made against her.
Law Points
- Execution proceedings against company
- Director as representative of defunct company
- No personal liability of director
- Order 21 Rule 50 CPC
- Section 34 CPC
