Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
(Through Physical Mode) vs Kishore Granites (P) Limited on 15 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.836 of 2022
(Through physical mode)
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Industries and Commerce Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and others.
..Appellants
Versus
Kishore Granites (P) Limited,
D.No.6-179/1, Ganapavaram Village,
Nadendla Mandal, Palnadu District,
Represented by its Managing Partner G.Ravi Kumar
...Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:15.12.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.07.2022
passed by the learned singe Judge allowing W.P.No.19447 of 2022,
directing respondent No.2 therein to consider and process the
application of the petitioner therein for grant of Mineral Dealer Licence,
in accordance with law and without reference to the demands raised
against the Managing Director of the petitioner-company. The
respondents in the writ petition are the appellants before us.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner, a private limited company, has been
carrying on the business of a Mineral Dealer under a Mineral Dealer
Licence bearing MDL No.48/539/GNT/2016 dated 23.05.2016, which is
valid up to 28.05.2021. After which, the petitioner applied for a new
Mineral Dealer license, which was not considered despite the fact that
the application of the petitioner has been filed as required under law.
3. The official respondents defended the prayer made in the writ
petition on the ground that the Managing Director of the petitioner-
company owes an amount of Rs.37,89,173/- to the Government on
account of his proprietary concern, which also had a Mineral Dealer
Licence.
4. Referring to the law laid down in the matter of "Solomon Vs.
Solomon & Co., reported in (1897) AC 22" learned single Judge has
found that the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
has to be treated as a distinct and separate entity and the primary
share holder in such a company cannot be taken to be the same as the
company itself. The personal dues of the Managing Director of a
company cannot be treated as the dues of the company.
5. The above legal position in the case of "Solomon" (supra) has
been holding the field for more than a century now. The Division Bench
of the High Court of Bombay in the matter of "K.Sera Sera Digital
Cinema Limited Vs. Union of India reported in 2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 10144" reiterated the legal position as in the case of
"Solomon" (supra). It is settled that a private company is a separate
legal entity and the individual dues of the director or managing director
cannot be recovered from the company and for that reason, the
properties of the company cannot be attached for recovery of the
dues, for which the director or managing director is liable. Such being
the settled legal position, we find no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned single Judge.
6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending
miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ INALA JAYASURYA, J
Ksp
