M/S Disha Investment Centre (P) ... vs S.N. Mittal S/O Late Sh. Ram Dass
2014 Latest Caselaw 6295 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  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.



                          VERSUS


S.N. MITTAL S/O LATE SH. RAM DASS               ...... Respondent

Through: Mr. Upender Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

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

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.1-

petitioner 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