Separate corporate personality bars execution against another company's assets despite common management by directors.

Property belonging to a separate company cannot be attached or sold in execution of a decree passed against another company merely because both entities are managed by the same directors. A company remains a distinct legal person with its own shareholders and assets, so execution must be confined to the judgment-debtor's property or pursued through other lawful execution modes. Where the decree-holder sought attachment of assets of companies other than the judgment-debtor company in liquidation, the execution was found not maintainable and the objections succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether properties belonging to other companies, even if managed by the same group of directors, could be attached and sold in execution of a decree passed against a different company.

Analysis: The objections were filed under Order 21, Rule 23(2) read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decree was passed against one company in liquidation, whereas the properties sought to be attached belonged to other limited companies. Those companies were separate legal entities with distinct shareholders and assets. Mere common management or control by the same directors did not make their property liable for satisfaction of the decree. Since no prayer was made to attach and sell the assets of the original judgment-debtors, the proposed execution against properties of other companies was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The properties of other companies could not be attached and sold to satisfy the decree against the judgment-debtor company, and the objections succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The execution against the properties of the other companies was rejected, while liberty remained to proceed only against property belonging to the original judgment-debtors or by other lawful modes of execution.

Ratio Decidendi: Property of a separate juristic person cannot be proceeded against in execution of a decree passed against another company merely because both are managed by the same group of directors.

---