Corporate veil and resignation could not defeat execution where transfers were treated as sham and liability had already accrued.

Execution could proceed against the attached flat and the life-time director where the transfer documents were treated as incapable of defeating the decree-holder's rights. The court found the flat traceable to the family and control of the director, and held that the company structure disclosed a sham arrangement justifying lifting of the corporate veil. It further held that the director could not avoid execution by resigning after the hearing, because resignation did not extinguish liability for obligations already incurred and the company acted only through its directors. The execution was therefore maintained and the objections of the company and director failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether execution of the Company Law Board order could proceed against the attached flat and against the life-time director despite the claimed transfers of the flat, the purported resignation of the director, and the plea that the property belonged to the applicant-company.

Analysis: The attached flat was found to be traceable to the family and control of the life-time director, with the documentary transfers viewed as incapable of defeating the decree-holder's rights. The Court held that the company structure and the transfer documents disclosed a sham arrangement, warranting lifting of the corporate veil. It further held that the director, who had functioned as the company's controlling agent and owed fiduciary duties, could not escape execution by resigning after the hearing, since resignation did not extinguish liability for obligations already incurred and the company could act only through its directors.

Conclusion: The execution was held maintainable, the objections to attachment and execution were rejected, and the challenges by the applicant-company and the director failed.

---