Corporate separateness prevents attachment of a director's personal property for company debts absent veil-piercing, so attachment vacated.

The High Court addressed whether property titled in a managing director's name may be attached for company debts and reaffirmed corporate separateness: liability for the company's debts rests with the company, and shareholder-liability provisions do not convert company debt into director or third-party liability. The court explained veil-piercing applies only where the company is used to evade legal obligations and no such misuse was found on the facts, and consequently the attachment of the director's property was unsustainable and the interim attachment order was vacated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the property held in the name of the managing director can be attached and made absolute for debts of the company.

Analysis: The Court examined evidence demonstrating that the property was purchased and held in the name of the managing director and that the defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Court noted that a company is a separate legal entity and that liability for the company's debts ordinarily rests with the company itself. The Court held that section 322 of the Companies Act relates to shareholder liability and does not impose the company's debts on directors or third parties. The Court considered authorities on piercing the corporate veil and held that veil-lifting applies only where the company is used to evade legal obligations; no such finding was made on the facts of this case. Therefore the lower court's attachment of the managing director's property for the company's debt was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The attachment of the appellant's property for the company's debt is not justified and the appeals are allowed; the orders below are set aside. The claim petition is dismissed and the challenged interim attachment order is vacated.

---