Delhi High Court
M/S Bhasin Infotech & ... vs Naresh Kumar Dua on 29 August, 2018
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 446/2018
% 29th August, 2018
M/S BHASIN INFOTECH & INFRASTRUCTURE
PVT LTD & ORS
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Madhur Gulshan Sapra, Adv.
(9810955755)
versus
NARESH KUMAR DUA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Tyagi, Advocate
(9810114261)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. At the time of issuing notice in this appeal on 25.5.2018,
the following order was passed:-
"1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC is filed by the
defendants in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated
23.1.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery filed
by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.17 lacs alongwith interest at
9% per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that admittedly the
contract of the respondent/plaintiff was only with the appellant no.1
and there was no contract with the appellant nos. 2 to 4 who were only
the Directors and Representatives of the appellant no.1-company, and in
law liability of a company is not the liability of the shareholders and
directors or employees of the company. It is argued that though this
aspect was not taken up in the pleadings, this aspect is a legal issue
which arises from admitted facts and therefore, this Court should take
note of the same, including for the reason that such an aspect was
argued at the time of final arguments before the trail court as reflected
by paras 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment.
3. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as not pressed so far as
appellant no.1 is concerned but with respect to there being no liability of
appellant nos. 2 to 4, notices be issued in this appeal to the respondent,
both in the ordinary method as well as by registered AD post, returnable
on 29th August, 2018.
4. For the present no interim orders are sought by the appellants
inasmuch as there are no attachment proceedings which have been
effected so far as the appellant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned,
Dasti."
2. Therefore, this Court only has to decide whether the trial
court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree dated
23.1.2018 against the appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant nos. 2 to 4 who
are only the Directors/representatives of the appellant no.1 company.
3. It cannot be disputed on the basis of the record that even
as per the plaint no personal liability was alleged to exist of the
appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant nos. 2 to 4 because these persons have
not stood as guarantors to repay the amount claimed by the
respondent/plaintiff. Even the subject shop which was to be sold, and for
which payment was to be made, was to the appellant no.1/defendant no.1
and therefore the liability would only be of the appellant no.1/defendant
no.1. As noted in the order dated 25.5.2018 this appeal was not pressed so
far as the impugned judgment and decree was passed against the appellant
no.1/defendant no.1.
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed by
holding that the impugned judgment and decree wrongly passes a money
decree against the appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant nos. 2 to 4 and that
appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant nos. 2 to 4 are held not to be liable because
there was no contract of the appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant nos. 2 to 4 with
the respondent/plaintiff to repay the amount to the respondent/plaintiff, and
the contract was only as between the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 and the
respondent/plaintiff. The suit against the appellant nos. 2 to 4/defendant
nos. 2 to 4 filed by the respondent/plaintiff will hence stand dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid observations.
AUGUST 29, 2018/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
