Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.65 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
V.K. Uppal vs M/S Akshay International Pvt. Ltd. on 9 February, 2010
12. A company, being a juristic entity, has to necessarily act through natural persons and we are still far from the day when such juristic entities, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence will enter into contracts without acting through natural persons. Thus, merely because a natural CS(OS) 3318/2012 person has acted on behalf of a juristic entity like a company will not make such natural person personally liable for the debts of such juristic entity. Reference if any required in this context can be made to V.K. Uppal Vs. Akshay International Pvt. Ltd. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 538 and Anirban Roy Vs. Ram Kishan Gupta MANU/DE/3524/2017.
Mozelle Robin Solomon vs Lt. Col. R.J. Solomon on 3 February, 1968
"I have in V.K. Uppal Vs. Akshay International Pvt. Ltd. 2010 SCC online Delhi 538 held; (i) that there is no provision in the CPC for execution of a money decree against a Pvt. Ltd company, against its directors; (ii) that though Order XXI Rule 50 of the CPC does provide for execution of a money decree against a firm, from the assets of the partners of the said firm mentioned in the said Rule but there is no provision with respect to directors of a company; (iii) that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and can execute the same as per its form only; (iv) that if the decree is against the company, the executing Court cannot execute the decree against anyone other than the judgment-debtor company or against the assets and properties of anyone other than the judgment-debtor company; (v) that the identity of a director or a shareholder of a company is distinct from that of the company--that is the very genesis of a company or a corporate identity or a juristic person;(vi) the classic exposition of law in this regard is contained in Solomon Vs. Solomon & Co. Ltd. 1897 AC 22 where the House of Lords held that in law, a company is a person all together different from its shareholders and directors and the shareholders and Directors of the company are not liable for the debts of the company except to the extent permissible; (vii) that though a Single Judge of this Court in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hockey Tournament Vs. Radiant Sports Management 149(2008) DLT 749 observed that there could be a case where the Court even in a execution proceeding lifts the veil of a closely held company, particularly a Pvt. Ltd company and in order to satisfy a decree, proceed against the personal assets of its directors and shareholders but the said judgment was over ruled by the Division Bench EFA(OS) No.17/2008 decided on 7th November, 2008 and reported as MANU/DE/1756/2008, finding that the director of the company had agreed to be personally liable to satisfy the decree and for this reason holding him liable; however the Division Bench refrained from commenting authoritatively on the aspect of lifting of the corporate veil in execution; (viii) that though Section 53 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 allows the creditors to have a transfer of property made with an intent to defeat the creditors set aside but a case therefor has to be pleaded; (ix) that it cannot be laid as a general proposition that whenever the decree is against a company, its Directors/ shareholders would also be liable-to hold so would be contrary to the very concept of limited liability and obliterate the distinction between a partnership and a company; (x) that though the Courts have watered down the principle in Solomon supra to cover the cases of a fraud, improper conduct, etc.
Tata Engineering And Locomotive Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Others on 25 February, 1964
26. The law as stated by Palmer and Gower has been approved by this Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1964 (6) S.C.R. 885 ]. The following passage form the decision is apposite:
Section 30 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 53 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Smt. V. Prabha Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Wps/6693/2017 ... on 11 April, 2018
13. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case No. C.R.P. No. 5832 of 2006 (V. Dharmavenamma Vs C. Subrahmanyam Mandadi) reported in (2009) 06 AP CK 0018 and a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Singh versus Collector, District Hamirpur U.P. and others, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693 to buttress the point that a decree holder cannot be compelled to adopt a particular mode for executing the decree. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of Madras High Court in the case O.S.A. No. 287 of 2019 and C.M.P. Nos.
Shyam Singh vs Collector, District Hamirpur, U.P. And ... on 25 September, 1992
13. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case No. C.R.P. No. 5832 of 2006 (V. Dharmavenamma Vs C. Subrahmanyam Mandadi) reported in (2009) 06 AP CK 0018 and a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Singh versus Collector, District Hamirpur U.P. and others, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693 to buttress the point that a decree holder cannot be compelled to adopt a particular mode for executing the decree. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of Madras High Court in the case O.S.A. No. 287 of 2019 and C.M.P. Nos.