Separate corporate personality bars attachment of a managing director's personal property for a company debt absent special statutory liability.

A company remains a separate legal entity, so a managing director's personal property cannot be attached for recovery of the company's debt unless a special law creates personal liability or the corporate veil can properly be lifted. Section 322 of the Companies Act was read as governing shareholders' liability to the company, not as imposing personal liability on directors towards outsiders. On the facts, the attached asset was the appellant's personal property, and there was no basis to disregard the company's separate identity. The company alone remained liable for the debt, and the managing director was not personally answerable for recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal property of a managing director could be attached for recovery of a company debt, and whether section 322 of the Companies Act applied to make the director personally liable.

Analysis: The company was treated as a separate legal entity, and the evidence showed that the attached property belonged personally to the appellant. Section 322 of the Companies Act was held to relate to the liability of shareholders towards the company and not to create personal liability of directors towards outsiders. In the absence of any special law making the managing director personally liable, the company alone remained liable for its debt. The circumstances did not justify lifting the corporate veil, as the suit itself was against the company for recovery of the amount due.

Conclusion: The managing director was not personally liable, and his property could not be attached for the company's debt.

---