Full Text
CM(M) 1093/2013 and C.M. No.16140/2013 (stay)
28th November, 2014 M/S DISHA INVESTMENT CENTRE (P) LTD. AND ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Garg, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Upender Gupta, Advocate.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Since four separate prayers were made in this petition, and which is clearly unacceptable in law inasmuch as the four separate orders/judgments are the main judgment dated 29.1.2013 decreeing the suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a subsequent order dated 11.5.2011 dismissing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, an order dated 9.12.2011 directing issuing of attachment warrants against movable properties and lastly the order dated 29.7.2013 2014:DHC:6525 ordering issuance of arrest warrants, counsel for the petitioner has conceded that this petition be only treated as a petition to challenge the order dated 29.7.2013 which issues warrants of arrest against Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma, one of the Directors of the petitioner company. It is only because of this reason that now the petition is only against the order dated 29.7.2013 that I am not dismissing the petition in limine which was otherwise not maintainable. Let the arguments take place with respect to challenge to the order dated 29.7.2013 by which warrants of arrest have been issued against one of the Directors of the petitioner company Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma.
2. The petitioner challenges the order of the executing court dated 29.7.2013 by which the executing court has issued warrants of arrest against Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma, who is one of the Directors of the defendant no.1/judgment debtor no.1/petitioner company.
3. It is settled law that liability of a company is independent than the liability of any Director or shareholder in the same. Liability of a company cannot be fastened in law upon a Director or a shareholder. Surely the decree holder/respondent can execute the decree against the judgment debtors in the suit but admittedly Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma is not the judgment debtor and he is only a Director of the judgment debtor no.1petitioner company.
4. Accordingly, order of the executing court dated 29.7.2013 is set aside and liberty is given to the respondent/decree holder to execute the decree in accordance with law against the judgment debtors in the suit.
5. Petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court be returned to the petitioner along with accrued interest thereon.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2014 Ne